Current US hypersonic weapons projects. (General)

Grey Havoc said:
Not too promising at the moment, to be honest.
Click to expand...

I think we will have clearer picture by next spring/early summer but yes, if the goal is to field ARRW by end of Fiscal Year 22, and something like HACM by end of FY 2024/25 then they are on a super tight schedule and need everything to line up.
 
Possibly it could be used as the basis for at least an interim system.
 
Last edited:
bobbymike said:
Make a nice hypersonic strike weapon

spacenews.com

Virgin Orbit eyes growth in military ‘responsive’ launch

Virgin Orbit is looking to grow its military business by proving that rockets launched from airplanes in flight can be instruments of national security.
spacenews.com spacenews.com
Click to expand...
I see another example of what’s become very common these days of a senior military man quickly finding work in the private sector. I was reading this is far more common than back even in the eighties and nineties.
 
bring_it_on said:
Next phase SciFIRE awards happened today. Both Boeing and Lockheed Martin selected to further their offerings through a PDR.
Click to expand...

Yesterday, Raytheon received a similar contract making it three design teams that will take their proposal through a PDR concluding in the third quarter of CY 2022.

Raytheon Missiles & Defense, Tucson, Arizona, was awarded a $27,991,408 cost-plus-fixed-fee modification (P00002) to previously awarded contract FA8682-21-C-0010 for the Southern Cross Integrated Flight Research Experiment (SCIFiRE) Project Phase I preliminary design review (PDR). The modification is an option exercise to mature a solid rocket-boosted, air-breathing, hypersonic conventional cruise missile, air-launched from existing fighter/bomber aircraft, through the completion of a (PDR). The location of performance is Tucson, Arizona, and work is expected to be completed by Sept. 2, 2022. This modification does not involve Foreign Military Sales. Fiscal 2020 and 2021 research and development funds in the amount of $1,521,861 and $8,750,000, respectively, are being obligated at the time of award. The total cumulative face value of the contract is $33,698,870. Future Hypersonics, Eglin Air Force Base, Florida, is the contracting activity.
Click to expand...
 
Flyaway said:
bobbymike said:
Make a nice hypersonic strike weapon

spacenews.com

Virgin Orbit eyes growth in military ‘responsive’ launch

Virgin Orbit is looking to grow its military business by proving that rockets launched from airplanes in flight can be instruments of national security.
spacenews.com spacenews.com
Click to expand...
I see another example of what’s become very common these days of a senior military man quickly finding work in the private sector. I was reading this is far more common than back even in the eighties and nineties.
Click to expand...
These GOs live to run to the traditional majors to secure "money for nothing and chicks for free"...completely corrupt... of course, half the reason for corporate capture and the collapse of innovation.

Now the Majors sponsor commentary to squash OTAs which allow small biz to own their IP. Innovators, of course need to own their IP.

If there were a competent USG, the USG would call in most USG ''not reduced to practice' by private funding' large systems and start competing almost all subcomponents and allowing small or non-traditional Lead System Integrators. This should be accomplished w/ an eye toward breaking up the Defense LSIs. Quality, timeliness and cost effectiveness would result. BTW the overall stock value of this diversification would be higher (break up of Standard oil model) and overall risk to any particular DOD sector stock reduced.


At least Virgin is a non-traditional vendor might actually deliver on time and on budget.
 
as stated before and agreed with by some more cogent Congressmen, there are too many hypersonic missile programs. Finally there is a manned hypersonic program which is far more efficient means to deliver a short range hypersonic. Apparently the SWAP and final form factors of scram jets are still not perfected. A rush to failure and or redundancy. The more speed, the more drag therefore long range hypersonics have to be too large for ships internal volume constraints, for instance. Someone needs to say, hold on, lets stop the redundancy, lets get the engine right. (maybe mach 5 is too slow, scrams might be more efficient at above mach 5, (if ur burning atmospheric 02 drag may not be an issue) for instance. Lets make sure we full UK and Aussy buy in on tech and purchase economies of scale etc before all these programs cost more than they are worth.
 
Ultra-efficient 3D printed catalysts could help solve the challenge of overheating in hypersonic aircraft and offer a revolutionary solution to thermal management across countless industries.

Developed by researchers at RMIT, the highly versatile catalysts are cost-effective to make and simple to scale.

The team's lab demonstrations show the 3D printed catalysts could potentially be used to power hypersonic flight while simultaneously cooling the system.
Click to expand...

next-gen-3d-printed-ca-1.jpg


phys.org

Next-gen 3D printed catalysts to propel hypersonic flight

Ultra-efficient 3D printed catalysts could help solve the challenge of overheating in hypersonic aircraft and offer a revolutionary solution to thermal management across countless industries.
phys.org phys.org
 
Flyaway said:
Scientific American - The Physics and Hype of Hypersonic Weapons
"These novel missiles cannot live up to the grand promises made on their behalf, aerodynamics shows"
www.scientificamerican.com

The Physics and Hype of Hypersonic Weapons

These novel missiles cannot live up to the grand promises made on their behalf, aerodynamics shows
www.scientificamerican.com www.scientificamerican.com
Click to expand...

I've just red it and was ready to post it - when I browsed and found it here. One word: SCATHING !
Well worth a read.
 
Archibald said:
Flyaway said:
Scientific American - The Physics and Hype of Hypersonic Weapons
"These novel missiles cannot live up to the grand promises made on their behalf, aerodynamics shows"
www.scientificamerican.com

The Physics and Hype of Hypersonic Weapons

These novel missiles cannot live up to the grand promises made on their behalf, aerodynamics shows
www.scientificamerican.com www.scientificamerican.com
Click to expand...

I've just red it and was ready to post it - when I browsed and found it here. One word: SCATHING !
Well worth a read.
Click to expand...

Well, I read it on your recommendation and the article does make a good, well argued case.

What happens at speeds above M5 is somewhat counterintuitive and also, from what I've understood reading about hypersonics here and elsewhere, the true expert/professional community around this subject isn't very numerous so the dynamics between military/policy and technology aren't all that straightforward. It's a real risk that we're accumulating distrust and other adverse proliferation on a mirage. Jeffrey "Arms Control Wonk" Lewis has for a long time offered similar critiques on the subject, not to mention that disambiguating intent (e.g. conventional vs. nuclear) in using hypersonic weapons doesn't seem quite as straightforward as its proponents would have us believe.

Nonetheless, I've found the recent Australian work particularly interesting, especially when it comes to civilian applications.
 
UpForce said:
Archibald said:
Flyaway said:
Scientific American - The Physics and Hype of Hypersonic Weapons
"These novel missiles cannot live up to the grand promises made on their behalf, aerodynamics shows"
www.scientificamerican.com

The Physics and Hype of Hypersonic Weapons

These novel missiles cannot live up to the grand promises made on their behalf, aerodynamics shows
www.scientificamerican.com www.scientificamerican.com
Click to expand...

I've just red it and was ready to post it - when I browsed and found it here. One word: SCATHING !
Well worth a read.
Click to expand...

Well, I read it on your recommendation and the article does make a good, well argued case.

What happens at speeds above M5 is somewhat counterintuitive and also, from what I've understood reading about hypersonics here and elsewhere, the true expert/professional community around this subject isn't very numerous so the dynamics between military/policy and technology aren't all that straightforward. It's a real risk that we're accumulating distrust and other adverse proliferation on a mirage. Jeffrey "Arms Control Wonk" Lewis has for a long time offered similar critiques on the subject, not to mention that disambiguating intent (e.g. conventional vs. nuclear) in using hypersonic weapons doesn't seem quite as straightforward as its proponents would have us believe.

Nonetheless, I've found the recent Australian work particularly interesting, especially when it comes to civilian applications.
Click to expand...
I imagine that’s why for example though they both crept into the light somewhat around the same time the RQ-180 appears to be flying around in the real world whereas the SR-72 seems to remain mostly a paper project.
 
Since 1975 stealth has won nearly every single match against speed. S-300 and S-400 won't help "speed" case anytime soon.
I've read Ben Rich memoirs recently, and I understand better why stealth was a game changer. It is far less exciting and makes aircraft look uniformly ugly, but war aren't won being sexy and exciting...
In fact it came as the right time, when the one and only option left to try and penetrate Soviet defense was the (rather dubious) "100 feet high at mach 0.9 with radar following terrain" : B-1A, F-111, Tornado...
 
I disagree a bit with the final conclusion, but the article itself was a fascinating read. It highlights the idea that the 'hypersonic' buzz word is really a large tent of in some cases unrelated technologies that are often grossly mischaracterized in the media. In particular it highlighted something I've aleays suspected - that 'maneuverability' will actually come at great costs to speed/range in gliders. That means deviating from your establish flight path comes at a fair cost and with a long lead time (ie, it is not reactive, only pre planned) such that interception during the mid course phase might be very practical - if you don't change trajectories, you're pretty much just a very slow LEO satellite. I suspect in the future one of the main anti-hypersonic weapons will be other hypersonics in the form of scramjets that are less expensive, air launched, and make intercept before the perceived threat envelope of the launching entity. Given a good enough tracking solution provided by satellite, that shouldn't really be a very difficult goal. If a glider has to start its maneuvering to avoid interception shortly after launch, then at the least range and terminal speed on target will be eaten up for the rest of the flight.
 
Josh_TN said:
In particular it highlighted something I've aleays suspected - that 'maneuverability' will actually come at great costs to speed/range in gliders. That means deviating from your establish flight path comes at a fair cost and with a long lead time (ie, it is not reactive, only pre planned) such that interception during the mid course phase might be very practical - if you don't change trajectories, you're pretty much just a very slow LEO satellite. I suspect in the future one of the main anti-hypersonic weapons will be other hypersonics in the form of scramjets that are less expensive, air launched, and make intercept before the perceived threat envelope of the launching entity. Given a good enough tracking solution provided by satellite, that shouldn't really be a very difficult goal. If a glider has to start its maneuvering to avoid interception shortly after launch, then at the least range and terminal speed on target will be eaten up for the rest of the flight.
Click to expand...

Not all are created equally. From the 60s:


4-The-Boost-Glide-Re-entry-Vehicle-investigated-related-technological-problems.png
 
Archibald said:
Since 1975 stealth has won nearly every single match against speed. S-300 and S-400 won't help "speed" case anytime soon.
Click to expand...
I think it depend on what sort of speed.
Mach 20 remain pretty much near impossible to intercept by 99.99% of air defense
 
This is why discussing 'hypersonic' as a single group is so misleading. Most any ballistic missile of any appreciable range is hypersonic, even a Scud. And there are maneuvering re-entry vehicles for out of atmo BMs. I think we narrow terms down to 'boost-glide' and 'scramjet' to avoid confusion - those two are unambiguously more flat trajectory items and quite honestly the two have almost nothing in common except they go fast.
 
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
In particular it highlighted something I've aleays suspected - that 'maneuverability' will actually come at great costs to speed/range in gliders. That means deviating from your establish flight path comes at a fair cost and with a long lead time (ie, it is not reactive, only pre planned) such that interception during the mid course phase might be very practical - if you don't change trajectories, you're pretty much just a very slow LEO satellite. I suspect in the future one of the main anti-hypersonic weapons will be other hypersonics in the form of scramjets that are less expensive, air launched, and make intercept before the perceived threat envelope of the launching entity. Given a good enough tracking solution provided by satellite, that shouldn't really be a very difficult goal. If a glider has to start its maneuvering to avoid interception shortly after launch, then at the least range and terminal speed on target will be eaten up for the rest of the flight.
Click to expand...

Not all are created equally. From the 60s:


View attachment 664010
Click to expand...

Wow, I'd never heard of that test. I'm guessing the reason it wasn't pursued is that it wasn't considered especially cost effective to have a tiny object like that require an ICBM booster level of energy when simple ballistic delivery was effectively unstoppable anyway. But interesting that they even performed tests. Navigation in that day and age must have been very marginal; ICBMs use astrogation which would clearly be unavailable. I assume this just used INS?
 
Josh_TN said:
This is why discussing 'hypersonic' as a single group is so misleading. Most any ballistic missile of any appreciable range is hypersonic, even a Scud. And there are maneuvering re-entry vehicles for out of atmo BMs. I think we narrow terms down to 'boost-glide' and 'scramjet' to avoid confusion - those two are unambiguously more flat trajectory items and quite honestly the two have almost nothing in common except they go fast.
Click to expand...
How about boost and cruise as the differentiator??
 
bobbymike said:
Josh_TN said:
This is why discussing 'hypersonic' as a single group is so misleading. Most any ballistic missile of any appreciable range is hypersonic, even a Scud. And there are maneuvering re-entry vehicles for out of atmo BMs. I think we narrow terms down to 'boost-glide' and 'scramjet' to avoid confusion - those two are unambiguously more flat trajectory items and quite honestly the two have almost nothing in common except they go fast.
Click to expand...
How about boost and cruise as the differentiator??
Click to expand...
I still think a scramjet and a boast/glide are vastly different things, even if both initially use a solid rocket booster. The physics of keeping something that starts at Mach 20 alive differ pretty wildly from the physics of keeping a scramjet lit but otherwise operating in an envelope not unlike that of a high performance AAM launched from a fighter in a high speed run.
 
Josh_TN said:
sferrin said:
Josh_TN said:
In particular it highlighted something I've aleays suspected - that 'maneuverability' will actually come at great costs to speed/range in gliders. That means deviating from your establish flight path comes at a fair cost and with a long lead time (ie, it is not reactive, only pre planned) such that interception during the mid course phase might be very practical - if you don't change trajectories, you're pretty much just a very slow LEO satellite. I suspect in the future one of the main anti-hypersonic weapons will be other hypersonics in the form of scramjets that are less expensive, air launched, and make intercept before the perceived threat envelope of the launching entity. Given a good enough tracking solution provided by satellite, that shouldn't really be a very difficult goal. If a glider has to start its maneuvering to avoid interception shortly after launch, then at the least range and terminal speed on target will be eaten up for the rest of the flight.
Click to expand...

Not all are created equally. From the 60s:


View attachment 664010
Click to expand...

Wow, I'd never heard of that test. I'm guessing the reason it wasn't pursued is that it wasn't considered especially cost effective to have a tiny object like that require an ICBM booster level of energy when simple ballistic delivery was effectively unstoppable anyway. But interesting that they even performed tests. Navigation in that day and age must have been very marginal; ICBMs use astrogation which would clearly be unavailable. I assume this just used INS?
Click to expand...
Almost certainly. Also note the HIGHEST it flew was 130,000 feet. Most of the flight was significantly lower than that. They didn't do it because there was nothing really that could shoot down an ICBM in those days. If this kind of stuff interests you you might be interested in this book, where the info came from:

www.goodreads.com

Lightning Bolts

History shows that demands of wartime military and political leaders have often motivated development of new and advanced technologies. T...
www.goodreads.com

Jeeeeezus. Five HUNDRED dollars for a paperback?


(Seems pretty steep when it can be found floating around the intertubes in PDF format.)
 
Sigh. This project is too slow, lets stop and rethink all of it. What "concept of operations" do you need? It's a JDAM that will get there really fast. Use it like that! Don't overthink it.

Is AGM-183 Launch Platform Available in theatre? >No ......FFS
Is AGM-183 Launch Platform Available in theatre? >Yes >
Is Target Type APPLICABLE? >Yes >
Is Target Type PRIORITY? (AGM-183=EXPENSIVE) >Yes >
Is Intelligence Confidence HIGH? >Yes >
Use the damn AGM-183!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
These GD idiots never change. Same thing back in the days of RATTLRS, HyFly, etc. Basically, "we don't have a use for them if they work".

"“It’s pretty clear to me what the Chinese want to do with the hypersonics they’re developing. It’s even pretty clear to me what the Russians might want to do with hypersonics,” Kendall said.

“The target set that we would want to address, and why hypersonics are the most cost effective weapons for the U.S., I think it’s still to me somewhat of a question mark,” he added. “I haven’t seen all the analysis that’s been done to justify the current program.”"

Hellooo McFly. Why wouldn't we want to, you know, do those same kinds of things?

"Although the Air Force’s work on hypersonic weapons is progressing, it’s not moving fast enough, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall told reporters at the Air Force Association’s Air, Space and Cyber conference."

Let me guess. Cancelling them and starting over would result in hypersonic weapons on the ramp sooner, right? Right? I'd underestimated the amount of dumbth out of this general when I compared him to the Keystone Cops. Obviously I gave him too much credit.
 
Last edited:
sferrin said:
These GD idiots never change. Same thing back in the days of RATTLRS, HyFly, etc. Basically, "we don't have a use for them if they work".

"“It’s pretty clear to me what the Chinese want to do with the hypersonics they’re developing. It’s even pretty clear to me what the Russians might want to do with hypersonics,” Kendall said.

“The target set that we would want to address, and why hypersonics are the most cost effective weapons for the U.S., I think it’s still to me somewhat of a question mark,” he added. “I haven’t seen all the analysis that’s been done to justify the current program.”"

Hellooo McFly. Why wouldn't we want to, you know, do those same kinds of things?

"Although the Air Force’s work on hypersonic weapons is progressing, it’s not moving fast enough, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall told reporters at the Air Force Association’s Air, Space and Cyber conference."

Let me guess. Cancelling them and starting over would result in hypersonic weapons on the ramp sooner, right? Right? I'd underestimated the amount of dumbth out of this general when I compared him to the Keystone Cops. Obviously I gave him too much credit.
Click to expand...
Has he been in a bubble? RAND did a study back in 1992 I believe about prompt conventional strike. Given nuclear arms reductions anticipated the US would have all these “extra” ballistic missiles and RAND said “hey they’re really accurate how about CPGS missiles?”

Yes the shorter range hypersonic systems today encompass more systems but are we saying in 30 years since the RAND report we don’t even understand how to use them in war?
 
Grey Havoc said:
URL unfurl="true"]https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/09/22/air-forces-top-civilian-hints-at-changes-to-hypersonic-weapons-programs/[/URL]

This is not likely to end well.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Why do I have the feeling that all hypersonic program will be cancelled then they will go with a "less risk", "mature" option of subsonic cruise missile?.
 
Ronny said:
Grey Havoc said:
URL unfurl="true"]https://www.defensenews.com/air/2021/09/22/air-forces-top-civilian-hints-at-changes-to-hypersonic-weapons-programs/[/URL]

This is not likely to end well.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: Why do I have the feeling that all hypersonic program will be cancelled then they will go with a "less risk", "mature" option of subsonic cruise missile?.
Click to expand...
Well they still think Tomahawk is superior to LRASM, (And Brahmos, Zircon, Shipwreck, Vulkan, Sizzler, etc.)
 
A lot on this is being overblown. The programs are using OTA's. This means that they have to (soon/beyond 5 years) begin transitioning into traditional programs of record. AGM-183A will need to do this in the next 1-2 budgets, and HACM within the FYDP. At that time, the service has to develop more detailed plans, do and get approval for the analysis required to set objective inventories, platforms, buy-rates and all the work that goes into creating a full fledged long term production program (they skipped some of this work by leveraging the new authorities when they created these programs). ARRW was set up as a rapidly fielded capability so as it finishes up on that it has to transition into something more sustainable. HACM is being developed under the same authority and likewise will have to do the same work to establish the program requirements for the future. The current DOD leadership is committed to hypersonic programs and has increased the funding from last year's levels while adding new programs for FY-22. This is unlikely to stop all of a sudden. Especially after the number 2 at the Pentagon highlighted offensive and defensive hypersonic capability as one of the top priorities against China.

But as ARRW, LRHW, IR-CPS, HACM and others transition from their 5 year OTA's to full fledged programs they will have to go through the process and compete with other investments in each of their service's acquisition portfolio. This doesn't mean that they won't be developed, and fielded under their existing contracts. Nothing points to them walking back on that. The work needed to get to "what comes after that" doesn't appear to have been fully fleshed out yet but will have to in the FY-23 and the FYDP as most of these programs will begin their transition in the next 2 or so years.
 
Last edited:
Yeah that's understandable but the current OT agreements are fairly secure and have Congressional support. That's not the problem. The problem is going to be more long term in the post 2025 timeframe when these operational prototypes are fielded and the work transitions to a full fledged program of record. I think OTA's don't even require a formal analysis of alternatives, or the type of work that goes into creating a program of record that establishes inventories, production rates and unit costs. All that work now needs to happen on some of these older OTA's (LRHW and ARRW) as they are getting close to finishing up their development.

On ARRW, the program is now at risk of having production contract slipping from FY-22 award to a FY-23 award given the delays with testing (they aren't expected to get back in the air till end of the year at the earliest). But even then, FY-23 and FY-24 is when they'll have to do the work to transition this program beyond its current state. HACM is running just a couple of years behind.
 
I think the target set and rationale for adopting hypersonics is quite clear. As for escalation issues, the US weapons are all non nuclear programs with gliders and cruise missiles of a size all but incapable of carrying a nuclear warhead. If nuclear ambiguity is a problem, somebody surely forgot to tell Russia and China.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom