Current US hypersonic weapons projects. (General)

I forgot about Grog.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Credit goes to those who do, not those who dream of doing.
 
Plus, everyone knows that the German rocket scientists stole everything from Goddard :)
 
DV7m-SRWkAAc11n.jpg


The Air Force achieved a major milestone yesterday when it completed the first captive-carry test of a new hypersonic weapon at Edwards Air Force Base, CA. According to a statement published by the service, a sensor-only version of the Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon AGM-183A was carried externally by a B-52 aircraft. It gathered data on "drag and vibration impacts on the weapon itself and on the external carriage equipment of the aircraft."

Air Force completes key test of new hypersonic weapon | InsideDefense.com

The Air Force achieved a major milestone yesterday when it completed the first captive-carry test of a new hypersonic weapon at Edwards Air Force Base, CA.
insidedefense.com insidedefense.com
 
Last edited:
Pentagon Ground Tests Fighter-Jet Launched Hypersonic Weapon

...

“In the last year, China has tested more hypersonic weapons than we have in a decade. We’ve got to fix that,” said Michael Griffin, the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, according to an Air Force report from February of this year.

...

“We are flying a HAWC system…ground tests have already happened. The whole point is to simulate what you would experience in flight, so you can create the correct thermal environment. You can model and measure the heat in the vehicle and you can measure the material properties,” Dr. Thomas Bussing, Vice President, Raytheon Missile Systems, told Warrior in an interview. “You can’t test range (with a ground test), but you can measure performance, lift of the vehicle and thrust, attributes from which you can infer range.”

defensemaven.io

Pentagon Ground Tests Fighter-Jet Launched Hypersonic Weapon

Pentagon and industry developers are now testing a new series of hypersonic weapons prototypes
defensemaven.io defensemaven.io
 
"Air Force Conducts Successful Hypersonic Weapon Flight Test"

(Annoyingly click-baity title but what are you gonna do with today's standards?)

"ARLINGTON, Va. --- The U.S. Air Force successfully conducted the first flight test of its AGM-183A Air Launched Rapid Response Weapon, or ARRW, on a B-52 Stratofortress aircraft on June 12 at Edwards Air Force Base, California.

A sensor-only version of the ARRW prototype was carried externally by a B-52 during the test to gather environmental and aircraft handling data.

The test gathered data on drag and vibration impacts on the weapon itself and on the external carriage equipment of the aircraft. The prototype did not have explosives and it was not released from the B-52 during the flight test. This type of data collection is required for all Air Force weapon systems undergoing development."


(Ye Gods, editing posts suuuuuuucks with the new forum software.)
 
Hopefully the US is finally at the “let’s put our full available resources” behind this technology stage of development
 
What is the max speed of the ARRW? I have seen many articles claim that it can reach Mach 20, really? I doubt it.
 
TAOG said:
What is the max speed of the ARRW? I have seen many articles claim that it can reach Mach 20, really? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you doubt it unless you have actual hard information from the program that claims otherwise. Multiple publications have referenced Mach 20 for the TBG/ARRW and this sounds about right for the type of weapon it is envisioned. Lockheed and DARPA have had nearly a decade post HTV-2 to work to solve some of the challenges associated with such type of weapons and incorporate lessons learned and other improvements since then.

The ARRW, now assigned the designation AGM-183A, evolves from the Tactical Boost Glide (TBG) programme launched in 2014 by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). By using a rocket to boost the missile to very high altitudes, the unpowered ARRW then glides down to lower altitudes at speeds up to Mach 20.
Click to expand...

www.flightglobal.com

Lockheed Martin claims both USAF hypersonic programmes

The US Air Force has selected Lockheed Martin to rapidly develop and field both new hypersonic missiles launched as a response to surprise developments in high-speed weapons by China and Russia, newly-released acquisition documents confirm.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
TAOG said:
What is the max speed of the ARRW? I have seen many articles claim that it can reach Mach 20, really? I doubt it.
Click to expand...

I don't know why you doubt it unless you have actual hard information from the program that claims otherwise. Multiple publications have referenced Mach 20 for the TBG/ARRW and this sounds about right for the type of weapon it is envisioned. Lockheed and DARPA have had nearly a decade post HTV-2 to work to solve some of the challenges associated with such type of weapons and incorporate lessons learned and other improvements since then.

The ARRW, now assigned the designation AGM-183A, evolves from the Tactical Boost Glide (TBG) programme launched in 2014 by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). By using a rocket to boost the missile to very high altitudes, the unpowered ARRW then glides down to lower altitudes at speeds up to Mach 20.
Click to expand...

www.flightglobal.com

Lockheed Martin claims both USAF hypersonic programmes

The US Air Force has selected Lockheed Martin to rapidly develop and field both new hypersonic missiles launched as a response to surprise developments in high-speed weapons by China and Russia, newly-released acquisition documents confirm.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
Click to expand...

That's what i want and searching for... Does there have any hard information (not the news but the documents provided by the government, contractor, or the statement from the people who participated or related to the program. ) about the Mach 20 speed ? Thedrive recently reports that "DARPA has said that it expected TBG to hit Mach 20 as it screamed back to earth. ", but i still don't find the source (darpa) now. Do you have any idea about that?
 
Last edited:
There's a link here that states Mach 20 but I'm very sceptical about something that size having enough propellant to reach Mach 20 while carrying a significant payload.
www.popularmechanics.com

The First U.S. Hypersonic Weapons: Arrow and Hacksaw

The U.S. is racing to catch up with Russian and Chinese hypersonic weapons.
www.popularmechanics.com www.popularmechanics.com

The first weapon, the AGM-183A Advanced Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW, pronounced “Arrow”) is an outgrowth of the DARPA’s Tactical Boost Glide program. ARRW is a rocket carried aloft by an aircraft such as a B-52 bomber and has a top speed of up to Mach 20.
Click to expand...
 
Or this is not the entire design? Maybe there is still a booster (which doesn't be integrated this time) and this is just the second stage?
 
Maybe that thing that was shown on the B-52 is only the upper stage of the missile.
 
sferrin said:
Maybe that thing that was shown on the B-52 is only the upper stage of the missile.
Click to expand...
I have a feeling it is the whole thing having read about ArcLight. If a 6.5m long 533mm missile can deliver a 90kg warhead 2,000nm, then the same missile increased to 800mm diameter can probably carry a 200kg warhead the same distance and if you can carry a dozen of them, that helps target saturation.

Although, it would make some sense to maybe base a longer range weapon around the same final stage. 20,000lbs is enormous though. A Pershing II was only 16,500lb. HCSW is supposedly bigger than ARRW though I thought.
 
Incorporating only the upper stage would make absolutely no sense for a carry test. Not having part of the missile body attached would completely invalidate any aerodynamic or vibroacoutic data collected during the flight. Also, why would the suspension lugs be on the upper stage?
 
TomS said:
Incorporating only the upper stage would make absolutely no sense for a carry test. Not having part of the missile body attached would completely invalidate any aerodynamic or vibroacoutic data collected during the flight. Also, why would the suspension lugs be on the upper stage?
Click to expand...

Why fly a Pershing II like this:

View attachment 615499
 
sferrin said:
TomS said:
Incorporating only the upper stage would make absolutely no sense for a carry test. Not having part of the missile body attached would completely invalidate any aerodynamic or vibroacoutic data collected during the flight. Also, why would the suspension lugs be on the upper stage?
Click to expand...

Why fly a Pershing II like this:

View attachment 615499
Click to expand...

That's not a Pershing II, it's a Pershing Ib, which was originally developed as a limited range version for the German Air Force to comply with SALT II. (The US also used them for some testing due to range limits at White Sands.)

It represents an actual operational configuration for Pershing, and would have required some separate testing from the Pershing II, because it was a different weapon in important ways.

Leaving off the booster in a captive-carry test of an air-launched missile would only make sense if the upper stage alone was an operational configuration. That seems unlikely in this case.
 
Yes, I knew it was an actual configuration (though no idea if they actually deployed any like that). That was kind of my point. I'm not necessarily claiming the shape shown on the B-52 has an additional booster. I was speculating that maybe it does. (Or else there's some other 20,000lb weapon in mind.)

615502 aybe
 
Point being, if the weapon does include a booster stage, not doing the aerodynamic testing with the booster stage is useless. Worse, actually, because it wastes time and resources testing a configuration that would have no relevance to the operational weapon. So this is clearly the whole weapon and there will not be a booster, at least not initially.
 
TomS said:
Point being, if the weapon does include a booster stage, not doing the aerodynamic testing with the booster stage is useless. Worse, actually, because it wastes time and resources testing a configuration that would have no relevance to the operational weapon. So this is clearly the whole weapon and there will not be a booster, at least not initially.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing that point. I think you missed mine. If there is a configuration with a booster that could account for the 20,000lb weight. That is all.
 
TomS said:
Point being, if the weapon does include a booster stage, not doing the aerodynamic testing with the booster stage is useless. Worse, actually, because it wastes time and resources testing a configuration that would have no relevance to the operational weapon. So this is clearly the whole weapon and there will not be a booster, at least not initially.
Click to expand...
I think what was suggested is that what is shown might be one complete weapon and the same thing with a booster might be another complete weapon. Sort of like a Derby and Derby-MR. But that's a complete guess, the 20,000lb weapon might just be a completely different weapon.
 
Forest Green said:
TomS said:
Point being, if the weapon does include a booster stage, not doing the aerodynamic testing with the booster stage is useless. Worse, actually, because it wastes time and resources testing a configuration that would have no relevance to the operational weapon. So this is clearly the whole weapon and there will not be a booster, at least not initially.
Click to expand...
I think what was suggested is that what is shown might be one complete weapon and the same thing with a booster might be another complete weapon. Sort of like a Derby and Derby-MR. But that's a complete guess, the 20,000lb weapon might just be a completely different weapon.
Click to expand...

Oh, OK, I see that. I suspect it's not likely, since the speed regimes for the two notional configurations would be really different, implying different payload vehicles. The 20,000-pound weapon is probably something else entirely.
 
TomS said:
Forest Green said:
TomS said:
Point being, if the weapon does include a booster stage, not doing the aerodynamic testing with the booster stage is useless. Worse, actually, because it wastes time and resources testing a configuration that would have no relevance to the operational weapon. So this is clearly the whole weapon and there will not be a booster, at least not initially.
Click to expand...
I think what was suggested is that what is shown might be one complete weapon and the same thing with a booster might be another complete weapon. Sort of like a Derby and Derby-MR. But that's a complete guess, the 20,000lb weapon might just be a completely different weapon.
Click to expand...

Oh, OK, I see that. I suspect it's not likely, since the speed regimes for the two notional configurations would be really different, implying different payload vehicles. The 20,000-pound weapon is probably something else entirely.
Click to expand...
Let’s hope there’s a half dozen weapons in development.
 
Information provided by aw&st

...
“The air-breathers have now evolved to the point where they’re actually more mature [than boost-glide systems],” says Tom Bussing, vice president of Raytheon
...
For the Air Force, the testing schedule still puts the boosted biconic glider, called HCSW, in the lead by about three months over HAWC and ARRW, Roper added. But the rising confidence in the maturity of the HAWC designs has revived prospects to secure funding for scramjet-powered weapons.
...
The Pentagon’s schedule calls for staging 15 hypersonic flight tests by 2021 and 40 overall by the end of 2023
...
“The goal is fly TBG this year and, if not, the latest would be early next year,” says Lockheed Martin Skunk Works Vice President
...
Meanwhile, Raytheon continues to develop its version of a winged glider under the TBG program as an alternative to Lockheed’s AGM-183A ARRW. The company’s goal is not to deliver a “me-too” version of the Lockheed design but something even more capable.
“We focused on capabilities that we don’t believe ARRW has,” Bussing says. “So I would look at Raytheon’s TBG solution as maybe the ARRW-2.”
 
bobbymike said:

PARIS AIR SHOW NEWS F-15EX Fighter Was Designed to Carry Hypersonic Missiles

PARIS AIR SHOW NEWS F-15EX Fighter Was Designed to Carry Hypersonic Missiles
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
Click to expand...
This was already been reported brefore.

"...Lastly, the F-15EX is seen as a reliable launch pad for new, larger weapons, in particular hypersonic missiles that will not fit inside the F-35A's internal weapons bay, the source notes.

"We've got to carry a [7,000lb] to 8,000lb weapon that is enormous and doesn't fit in an internal bay," says the source. "And we need a very reliable platform that we well understand, that has power, space and cooling, and we can adapt quickly over the next 10, 12 or 15 years."..."



www.flightglobal.com

US Air Force sees F-15EX as cheap and quick fix

The US Air Force (USAF) is requesting funds from Congress for eight Boeing F-15EX fighters instead of more of its favoured aircraft, the Lockheed Martin F-35A Lightning II stealth fighter, in a move aimed at cutting costs.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom