Current US hypersonic weapons projects. (General)

[stealthflanker]

Or maybe learn from Gryphon TEL's where one can pack 4 missiles.

 

[Bhurki]

View attachment 665747

Could someone estimate the size of that missile cell ? (In comparison to the puller or diameter of those wheels?)

 

[TomcatViP]

@sferrin : look at the way they are pulling it off the trailer of the delivery truck. See the rear triple axle play. Not too bad for something that has to move around a typical expeditionary road networks (outside dimensions) and still fulfill the mission.

 

[bring_it_on]

Or maybe learn from Gryphon TEL's where one can pack 4 missiles.

What can they learn from the Gryphon TEL? How to pack four missiles? LRHW uses a trailer and for expeditionary reasons, and to expedite fielding, the Army mandated that either an existing, as is, inventory trailer, or a modified trailer already in the inventory be used. They wanted eight missiles per Battery and two 34.5 inch missiles per TE seems logical. Using an integrated TEL seems counterintuitive for an expeditionary environment. They aren't parking this thing off of the border of Canada but will have to ship or airlift this thing halfway across the globe and then sustain the system there. Commonality matters when trying to manage the logistics associated with that. The US Army's Typhon battery (more similar to the Gryphon in role) will have 16 missiles with four per each trailer.

 

[sferrin]

@sferrin : look at the way they are pulling it off the trailer of the delivery truck. See the rear triple axle play. Not too bad for something that has to move around a typical expeditionary road networks (outside dimensions) and still fulfill the mission.

A soldier actually has to run around to the back of the trailer and attach the pads to the hydraulic stabilizers. The THAAD launcher is the same way.

 

[bring_it_on]

For the love of God, could somebody at Oshkosh PLEASE crack a book on Russian/Chinese TELs and learn how it's supposed to be done?)

Doesn't it have 2x the loadout of the DF-17? And a trailer is better from an expeditionary perspective where you can get a new prime mover (standard HEMTT) if one breaks down as opposed to being stuck.

A soldier actually has to run around to the back of the trailer and attach the pads to the hydraulic stabilizers. The THAAD launcher is the same way.

You can automate this very easily. However, having a bit of experience on this with some other systems with the Army, the Army doesn't like that from a logistical perspective as it introduces complexity which can cause breakdown when forward deployed. The same reason it (and the USMC) still prefers to tow many of its radars, and requires manually setting them up for tasks that have been automated (by the same OEM's) in many other similar applications.

 

[sferrin]

Or maybe learn from Gryphon TEL's where one can pack 4 missiles.

What can they learn from the Gryphon TEL? How to pack four missiles? LRHW uses a trailer and for expeditionary reasons, and to expedite fielding, the Army mandated that either an existing, as is, inventory trailer, or a modified trailer already in the inventory be used. They wanted eight missiles per Battery and two 34.5 inch missiles per TE seems logical. Using an integrated TEL seems counterintuitive for an expeditionary environment. They aren't parking this thing off of the border of Canada but will have to ship or airlift this thing halfway across the globe and then sustain the system there. Commonality matters when trying to manage the logistics associated with that. The US Army's Typhon battery (more similar to the Gryphon in role) will have 16 missiles with four per each trailer.

Yeah, you have to cut a lot of corners to stuff it on a plane.

What is Typhon?

 

[sferrin]

For the love of God, could somebody at Oshkosh PLEASE crack a book on Russian/Chinese TELs and learn how it's supposed to be done?)

Doesn't it have 2x the loadout of the DF-17? And a trailer is better from an expeditionary perspective where you can get a new prime mover (standard HEMTT) if one breaks down as opposed to being stuck.

The DF-17 looks like a bigger missile. Certainly it's glider wouldn't fit in a LRHW cannister.

 

[bring_it_on]

For the love of God, could somebody at Oshkosh PLEASE crack a book on Russian/Chinese TELs and learn how it's supposed to be done?)

Doesn't it have 2x the loadout of the DF-17? And a trailer is better from an expeditionary perspective where you can get a new prime mover (standard HEMTT) if one breaks down as opposed to being stuck.

The DF-17 looks like a bigger missile. Certainly it's glider wouldn't fit in a LRHW cannister.

Well exactly. And the fact that these are expeditionary systems makes the comparison much harder to do. Army prefers trailers and passes on several tasks that could easily be automated for doing so would add to the logistical and sustainment burden. The Marines are even more strict about what they will or won't accept.

 

[bring_it_on]

What is Typhon?

Army's Mid-Range Capability. Basically Tomahawk, and SM-6 (and whatever else will fit the MK41 in the future). The Army has confirmed that it will have four Mk41 tubes per trailer, and four trailers per battery. Ignore the PATRIOT launcher in the graphic, since this presentation they've also said that they are using a variant of the SCO developed MK41 launch system that just launched an SM-6 from an unmanned Navy vessel.

 

[TomcatViP]

You can automate this very easily. However, having a bit of experience on this with some other systems with the Army, the Army doesn't like that from a logistical perspective as it introduces complexity which can cause breakdown when forward deployed. The same reason it (and the USMC) still prefers to tow many of its radars, and requires manually setting them up for tasks that have been automated (by the same OEM's) in many other similar applications.

I suspect that one of the main reason driving the removable pad for the stabilizer is on being roadable. With those pads fitted, you'll certainly not be allowed to use public road, cutting the benefits to have an easily deployable asset like this.
Notice that the rear "bumper" follow general design rules for truck and trailers when the pads are removed (would be interesting to see how that fits with pictures of this trailer seen driving on public roads).

 

[totallyaverage]

View attachment 665747

The Army Just Got Its Hands On Its First "Dark Eagle" Hypersonic Missile Launchers

The hypersonic missile era is about to officially begin for the U.S. Army.

www.thedrive.com

(For the love of God, could somebody at Oshkosh PLEASE crack a book on Russian/Chinese TELs and learn how it's supposed to be done?)

Neither country has a TEL that can carry one, let alone two, MRBM class missiles and remain C-17 transportable. Rapid deployability is a critical requirement for the US. It doesn't matter how capable a weapon system is if you don't have it where and when you need it. It's the same reason why the Patriot launcher is designed the way it was; it was the only way to fit four large diameter missiles on a mobile launcher and still have it be C-141 transportable.

Additionally, designing a TEL would add hundreds of millions or more in extra costs, in a budget where the Army is trying to squeeze every last penny to fund its other modernization programs.

 

[bobbymike]

Raytheon Ends Air-Launched Hypersonic Vehicle Test Drought | Aviation Week Network

DARPA’s HAWC demonstration program scores first successful scramjet test despite new scrutiny for U.S. hypersonic weapons.

aviationweek.com

 

[Grey Havoc]

Via Slashdot:

Pentagon says hypersonic weapons are too expensive

The Pentagon wants defense contractors to cut the ultimate cost of hypersonic weapons, the head of research and development said on Tuesday, as the next generation of super-fast missiles being developed currently cost tens of millions per unit.

www.reuters.com

 

[Josh_TN]

The big boosters for ground launched gliders are always going to be expensive (and I presume the gliders aren't cheap either). My hope is that something like HAWC is actually much more affordable. The entire engine is a 3D print; I'd have thought that would do a lot to bring the cost down. If they really want a cheaper ground launched weapon maybe they need to settle for a throttlable ramjet with a booster instead of boost-glide. You could cruise low supersonic to get to altitude and approach the target and then open up to hypersonic or near hypersonic when you got with the defended airspace of the target.

 

[Flyaway]

Department of Defense Funds Georgia Tech to Enhance U.S. Hypersonics Capabilities | News Center

Vastly different than conventional military weapons and aircraft, hypersonics systems are game-changing for national security, providing unprecedented speed and maneuverability. Operating at more than five times the speed of sound, these systems can alter course after takeoff, making them hard...

news.gatech.edu

News | UAH | The University of Alabama in Huntsville

www.uah.edu

 

[sferrin]

From the video the missile weight is about 16,300lbs. (Difference between "Loaded" and "Spent" on the side of the missile canister.)

 

[Josh_TN]

Wow, I see it at 2:25. That's a heavier launch weight than I would have expected.

 

[TomcatViP]

They are probably good to space more widely those anchor points. Having that small acute angle for the straps is scary.

 

[bobbymike]

Pentagon says hypersonic weapons are too expensive

The Pentagon wants defense contractors to cut the ultimate cost of hypersonic weapons, the head of research and development said on Tuesday, as the next generation of super-fast missiles being developed currently cost tens of millions per unit.

www.reuters.com

 

[sferrin]

Pentagon says hypersonic weapons are too expensive

The Pentagon wants defense contractors to cut the ultimate cost of hypersonic weapons, the head of research and development said on Tuesday, as the next generation of super-fast missiles being developed currently cost tens of millions per unit.

www.reuters.com

I think the only way they'll get the cost down is to buy more. Everybody is tooled up for composite/aluminum/titanium structures. Don't know how much industry bandwidth there is for all the high-temp materials they'll need. Just for example, the RATTLRS airframe was a titanium airframe made at a smaller company (Klune). HyFly used a giant titanium casting for it's body.

 

[TomcatViP]

Lawmakers, local officials, Grand Forks business leaders and executives from Northrop Grumman met on Wednesday, Oct. 13, to officially recognize the transfer of four retired Global Hawk drones. The drones will be retrofitted with new equipment, then flown out to either the east or west coast where they will be used to assist in hypersonic missile testing. The drones were transferred to Northrop’s facility from Grand Forks Air Force Base.

Northrop Grumman to repurpose 'graduated' Global Hawk drones, for missile testing

Lawmakers, local officials, Grand Forks business leaders and executives from Northrop Grumman met on Wednesday, Oct. 13, to officially recognize the transfer of four retired Global Hawk drones. The drones will be retrofitted with new equipment, then flown out to either the east or west coast where…

www.grandforksherald.com

 

[stealthflanker]

Pentagon says hypersonic weapons are too expensive

The Pentagon wants defense contractors to cut the ultimate cost of hypersonic weapons, the head of research and development said on Tuesday, as the next generation of super-fast missiles being developed currently cost tens of millions per unit.

www.reuters.com

I think the only way they'll get the cost down is to buy more. Everybody is tooled up for composite/aluminum/titanium structures. Don't know how much industry bandwidth there is for all the high-temp materials they'll need. Just for example, the RATTLRS airframe was a titanium airframe made at a smaller company (Klune). HyFly used a giant titanium casting for it's body.

Yep.. they should buy more.. and in fact.. that's the best and proven way to get things cheaper.

 

[bobbymike]

Hypersonic Weapons: Fast, Furious…and Futile?

Hypersonic weapons will not revolutionise military affairs. But they will have a negative impact on international security stability.

rusi.org

 

[RavenOne]

First fielding at Joint Base Lewis-McChord

Army delivers first hypersonics ground equipment

JOINT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD, Wash. – Today the U.S. Army equipped the I Corps’ 5th Battalion, 3rd Field Artillery Regiment, 17th Field Artillery Brigade, w...

www.army.mil

Delivery of the hardware began in March 2021 and finished at the end of September 2021. The delivery includes a battery operations center, four transporter erector launchers, and modified trucks and trailers that make up the LRHW ground equipment.

Cheers

 

[seruriermarshal]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1451222891455033354

View: https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1451222891455033354

 

[seruriermarshal]

USA. Hypersonic Weapon Component Tests. Army: Three Successful Attempts

October 21, 2021

The US Army conducted prototype testing of hypersonic weapons components on Wednesday, the Pentagon said. As added, three attempts were successful. A few days ago, the British Financial Times reported that in August China launched a hypersonic missile capable of carrying nuclear weapons.

USA. Hypersonic Weapon Component Tests. Army: Three Successful Attempts

The US Army conducted prototype testing of hypersonic weapons components on Wednesday, the Pentagon said. As added, three attempts were successful. A few days ago, the British Financial Times reported that in August China launched a hypersonic missile capable of carrying nuclear weapons. Outside...

polishnews.co.uk

 

[bring_it_on]

Silly attempts to link this to the Chinese tests. It has been known for a while that as Glide body and other component production transitions from Sandia to Dynetics, under the supervision of Sandia, that initial components will be tested before being certified. This is probably that. The next glide body test will be the last before the first AUR test, two of which should happen this fiscal year and one the next prior to LRHW being declared operational.

Navy and Army Demonstrate Advanced Hypersonic Technologies

The Navy Strategic Systems Programs (SSP) and the Army Hypersonic Program Office (AHPO) successfully conducted a High Operational Tempo for Hypersonics flight campaign on October 20, 2021.

www.navy.mil

 

[jsport]

Unwanted Global Hawk Drones Are Being Transformed To Support Hypersonic Missile Tests

Northrop Grumman is now working to convert four RQ-4s as Range Hawks to gather data on the new breed of hypersonic weapons.

www.thedrive.com

 

[Dilandu]

Silly attempts to link this to the Chinese tests.

Well, it could actually accelerate the schedule)

 

[bring_it_on]

Silly attempts to link this to the Chinese tests.

Well, it could actually accelerate the schedule)

How and why? The next four tests have already been announced and three of those four will be conducted by the first operational battery that just begun new equipment training this Monday. Once those three AUR tests conclude, and assuming they are successfull, the first battery will be declared operational. Most of that stuff in terms of equipment purchase, training, delivery dates for testing and back up test window are pretty firm with little room to accelerate. Those dates and back up windows were probably firmed up months ago.

 

[bring_it_on]

A rocket failure spoiled the first attempt to launch the Block 0 Common Hypersonic Glide Body (CHGB) and common, two-stage booster for the U.S. Army and Navy on Oct. 21 in Kodiak, Alaska, a Defense Department spokesman said.

First Test Of Army/Navy Hypersonic Glider-Booster Combo Failed | Aviation Week Network

The failed test is one of a series of over the past year marring the Pentagon’s portfolio of boost-gliding and air-breathing hypersonic weapons.

aviationweek.com

 

[seruriermarshal]

From thedrive.com

Updated 6:20 PM EST:

U.S. Navy Lieutenant Command Tim Gorman, a Pentagon spokesperson, has provided the following statement regarding today's failed test:

On Oct. 21, the Department of Defense conducted a data collection experiment from the Pacific Spaceport Complex-Alaska, Kodiak, AK, to inform the department’s hypersonic technology development. The test did not occur as planned due to a failure of the booster stack. The booster stack used in the test was not part of the hypersonic program and is not related to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body. The missile booster is used for testing purposes only. Program officials have initiated a review to determine the cause of the booster system failure to inform future tests. Experiments and tests – both successful and unsuccessful – are the backbone of developing highly complex, critical technologies at tremendous speed, as the department is doing with hypersonic technologies. Delivering hypersonic weapons remains a top priority, and the department remains confident that it is on track to field offensive hypersonic capabilities beginning in the early 2020s. This flight test is part of an ongoing series of flight tests as we continue to develop this technology.

From this statement, it remains unclear whether whatever this missile was actually left the launch pad. We still don't know exactly what the reason for the booster stack's failure was, either.

In addition, this statement raises questions about exactly what was under test today, especially if it is entirely unrelated to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB). This C-HGB is the boost glide vehicle that will be used on Army and Navy's common hypersonic missile.

It is possible that this could have been a test of something entirely new, which may not even necessarily be a weapon system. That it might not be related to Dark Eagle or IRCPS would also fit with the apparent expected range of the test that we had already noted.

U.S. Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon Test Fails (Updated)

The test appeared set to loft a hypersonic craft beyond the range of any existing known U.S. boost-glide vehicle-based weapon in development.

www.thedrive.com

 

[trose213]

In addition, this statement raises questions about exactly what was under test today, especially if it is entirely unrelated to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB). This C-HGB is the boost glide vehicle that will be used on Army and Navy's common hypersonic missile.

It is possible that this could have been a test of something entirely new, which may not even necessarily be a weapon system. That it might not be related to Dark Eagle or IRCPS would also fit with the apparent expected range of the test that we had already noted.

So something black?

 

[seruriermarshal]

In addition, this statement raises questions about exactly what was under test today, especially if it is entirely unrelated to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB). This C-HGB is the boost glide vehicle that will be used on Army and Navy's common hypersonic missile.

It is possible that this could have been a test of something entirely new, which may not even necessarily be a weapon system. That it might not be related to Dark Eagle or IRCPS would also fit with the apparent expected range of the test that we had already noted.

So something black?

I think they test a new booster that in black program .

 

[trose213]

I think they test a new booster that in black program .

But why the glide vehicle then?

 

[DWG]

From thedrive.com

Updated 6:20 PM EST:

U.S. Navy Lieutenant Command Tim Gorman, a Pentagon spokesperson, has provided the following statement regarding today's failed test:

On Oct. 21, the Department of Defense conducted a data collection experiment from the Pacific Spaceport Complex-Alaska, Kodiak, AK, to inform the department’s hypersonic technology development. The test did not occur as planned due to a failure of the booster stack. The booster stack used in the test was not part of the hypersonic program and is not related to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body. The missile booster is used for testing purposes only. Program officials have initiated a review to determine the cause of the booster system failure to inform future tests. Experiments and tests – both successful and unsuccessful – are the backbone of developing highly complex, critical technologies at tremendous speed, as the department is doing with hypersonic technologies. Delivering hypersonic weapons remains a top priority, and the department remains confident that it is on track to field offensive hypersonic capabilities beginning in the early 2020s. This flight test is part of an ongoing series of flight tests as we continue to develop this technology.

From this statement, it remains unclear whether whatever this missile was actually left the launch pad. We still don't know exactly what the reason for the booster stack's failure was, either.

In addition, this statement raises questions about exactly what was under test today, especially if it is entirely unrelated to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB). This C-HGB is the boost glide vehicle that will be used on Army and Navy's common hypersonic missile.

If you're referring to "The booster stack used in the test was not part of the hypersonic program and is not related to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body." that's perfectly consistent with the C-HGB being under test, they just weren't lofting it with the booster planned for operational use. Most likely culprit would be whatever they're using for BMD testing (though not Black Sparrow as that's air-launched) as that's consistent with "The missile booster is used for testing purposes only."

 

[seruriermarshal]

If you're referring to "The booster stack used in the test was not part of the hypersonic program and is not related to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body." that's perfectly consistent with the C-HGB being under test, they just weren't lofting it with the booster planned for operational use. Most likely culprit would be whatever they're using for BMD testing (though not Black Sparrow as that's air-launched) as that's consistent with "The missile booster is used for testing purposes only."

For DARPA Glide Breaker ?

 

[DWG]

If you're referring to "The booster stack used in the test was not part of the hypersonic program and is not related to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body." that's perfectly consistent with the C-HGB being under test, they just weren't lofting it with the booster planned for operational use. Most likely culprit would be whatever they're using for BMD testing (though not Black Sparrow as that's air-launched) as that's consistent with "The missile booster is used for testing purposes only."

For DARPA Glide Breaker ?

Never even heard of that one. All the test needs is a booster to get the CHGB up to speed before it cuts it loose and you can use anything in the inventory that's powerful enough for that. And the various targets for BMD trials are probably in the right size and performance range.

 

[seruriermarshal]

If you're referring to "The booster stack used in the test was not part of the hypersonic program and is not related to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body." that's perfectly consistent with the C-HGB being under test, they just weren't lofting it with the booster planned for operational use. Most likely culprit would be whatever they're using for BMD testing (though not Black Sparrow as that's air-launched) as that's consistent with "The missile booster is used for testing purposes only."

For DARPA Glide Breaker ?

Never even heard of that one. All the test needs is a booster to get the CHGB up to speed before it cuts it loose and you can use anything in the inventory that's powerful enough for that. And the various targets for BMD trials are probably in the right size and performance range.

Probably a Hypersonic target for Glide Breaker ? It need a new booster.