Current US hypersonic weapons projects. (General)

[Desertfox]

I'd like to see you qualify that claim with regards to hypersonics.

Technologically speaking, the US is fine. In terms of deployable locations where it matters? That's going to be a strategically sensitive subject for the smaller neighboring countries who do business with Russia & China.

The US is barely into testing with little in the way of industrial base and nothing in service. The same cannot be said of China, which has several systems actually in production and in service.

When DC falls I’m sure the Chinese will be impressed with what’s in our labs

China has zero intention of making DC fall. It's poor business practice to make your #1 consumer go broke.

 

[skyblue]

It's looking like hypersonic weapons are gonna be enormously, prohibitively expensive. Several tens of millions upwards to even the price of modern fighter jets. With that kind of price tag maybe reusable scramjet powered platforms unloading cheaper munitions are more attractive? Maybe for the needs of the U.S. that is the sweet spot, and thusly that explains why they're seemingly reluctant about going all-in with the current slate of HGVs in development. What is optimal for China is not the same for the U.S. China is purposing HGVs for striking hugely juicy targets (CSGs), so even very pricey one time use silver bullets can achieve a good cost exchange ratio. The U.S. by contrast has a much more diffuse target set, so would prefer/require reusable hypersonic aircraft.

 

[bring_it_on]

The AUR cost for the first dozen AGM-183A is estimated at about $12 Million. Thats LRIP production rate of just a dozen missiles a year. What would it cost at a production rate of 300? Probably $8-10 MM. Something like a HACM can be closer to $5 Million. So there are cost effective weapons in this class as long as you manage performance and requirements. The real expensive systems are the intermediate or longer ranged systems with 2500+ km range. That's true for even Ballistic Missiles. So cost will very much be capability dependent. A 800 km HACM will probably cost 1/8th of a 3000 km LRHW so that will be what you field in greater quantities.

Reusables are decades away. To get there you need to evolve the tech. Seems like fielding tactical scramjet weapons is a great way to do that. Most Air Force, or DARPA roadmaps to get to reusables goes through this step by step approach.

 

[In_A_Dream]

Doesn't matter. A failed test means they couldn't test what they wanted to test on the Glider. Which means another test has to be conducted to do that experiment, which means likely delays. We will see if they do the first LRHW test before year end as was planned. That would already be a delay relative to the very first schedule but at least it will be close to what they claimed they'll do earlier this summer. If they can't then that 2023 fielding date is probably unlikely. TBG on the other hand is more than two year late. TO BEGIN FLIGHT TESTING. So even if they ace the tests you're likely looking at a 3+ year total delay. 3 years is what the AF wanted to field the entire ARRW program in (see att.) which just goes to show how much of a sham the whole OTA contracting business really is.

The Chinese believe that their S&T community has developed, their industrial capacity has produced, and their operators fielded what they need as far as these systems are concerned. At least the initial weapons. They continue to out test the rest of the world and will no doubt continue on a rapid trajectory of improvement across the gamut. The DOD takes their capability serious enough to demand GPI's so it must be challenging enough for them.

Meanwhile, we have folks sell us pie in the sky ideas like developing a new fighter every five years when we can't even field a sub-system in that timeframe.

No one is panicking. But good to level set and realize that you are trailing some of your opponents and must catch up. And catching up seems quite unlikely in the long term if you don't significantly accelerate your pace of development, testing, and investment. All those claims were made by DOD officials as recently as last year. But they never really ramped up which is a clear indication that there are delays. Those could be short term delays (few months to a few years) or long term delays (complete program terminations). We won't know until next year.

On top of that, we have folks already out there saying the weapons we can't seem to design and field on time, are too costly even if they are developed, perform to specification and fielded. So there is a small chance that we never really build up an inventory because folks think a LRHW should cost as much as a JDAM or a JASSM.

Backing away and looking at the bigger picture, it is really about prioritization. We are very advanced when it comes to scramjets. So why does the AF or Navy not field a weapon yet? Because until very recently (literally 12 months ago), they didn't want one. Overall, the DOD is not super interested in hypersonic. At least not when it comes to investment. We spend around $3.5 billion on offensive hypersonic development in FY-22. That's 3% of the total RDT&E budget for the DOD. Does that seem like the level of investment coming from someone greatly interested in dominating this in terms of fielded weapons? How much did they spend on acquiring capabilities like PGM's, stealth aircraft, advanced command and control etc. historically? Or mastering ballistic missiles, missile defense or even space launch? If you invest such a small amount and have operators reluctant to launch weapons programs you will be late. No one is going to create test infrastructure or an industrial base for weapons the services dont' really want. We do have a roadmap that if enacted will place on a glide path to dominate numerically particularly with scramjets. But for that to be successful it needs services to buy in. Will CQ Brown put in a program that demands 2000 HACM's to be fielded? They have built programs to get them that level but so far the services have been reluctant to launch full fledged programs choosing instead to wait and watch utilizing OTA prototyping contracts.

Everything's going to be fine.

 

[Bhurki]

The AUR cost for the first dozen AGM-183A is estimated at about $12 Million. Thats LRIP production rate of just a dozen missiles a year. What would it cost at a production rate of 300? Probably $8-10 MM. Something like a HACM can be closer to $5 Million. So there are cost effective weapons in this class as long as you manage performance and requirements. The real expensive systems are the intermediate or longer ranged systems with 2500+ km range. That's true for even Ballistic Missiles. So cost will very much be capability dependent. A 800 km HACM will probably cost 1/8th of a 3000 km LRHW so that will be what you field in greater quantities.

Reusables are decades away. To get there you need to evolve the tech. Seems like fielding tactical scramjet weapons is a great way to do that. Most Air Force, or DARPA roadmaps to get to reusables goes through this step by step approach.

Meanwhile B-21 dropped JSOW-ER would do 250 miles for $500k.
The hypersonics, therefore, should be limited for use in time limited scenarios exclusively.

 

[Ronny]

The AUR cost for the first dozen AGM-183A is estimated at about $12 Million. Thats LRIP production rate of just a dozen missiles a year. What would it cost at a production rate of 300? Probably $8-10 MM. Something like a HACM can be closer to $5 Million. So there are cost effective weapons in this class as long as you manage performance and requirements. The real expensive systems are the intermediate or longer ranged systems with 2500+ km range. That's true for even Ballistic Missiles. So cost will very much be capability dependent. A 800 km HACM will probably cost 1/8th of a 3000 km LRHW so that will be what you field in greater quantities.

Reusables are decades away. To get there you need to evolve the tech. Seems like fielding tactical scramjet weapons is a great way to do that. Most Air Force, or DARPA roadmaps to get to reusables goes through this step by step approach.

Meanwhile B-21 dropped JSOW-ER would do 250 miles for $500k.
The hypersonics, therefore, should be limited for use in time limited scenarios exclusively.

But JSOW-ER will need much higher quantity to penetrate air defense. Something like 15-1 ratio compared to HACM probably

 

[sferrin]

It's looking like hypersonic weapons are gonna be enormously, prohibitively expensive.

How much would it cost if LA got hit with hypersonic weapons?

 

[sferrin]

Doesn't matter. A failed test means they couldn't test what they wanted to test on the Glider. Which means another test has to be conducted to do that experiment, which means likely delays. We will see if they do the first LRHW test before year end as was planned. That would already be a delay relative to the very first schedule but at least it will be close to what they claimed they'll do earlier this summer. If they can't then that 2023 fielding date is probably unlikely. TBG on the other hand is more than two year late. TO BEGIN FLIGHT TESTING. So even if they ace the tests you're likely looking at a 3+ year total delay. 3 years is what the AF wanted to field the entire ARRW program in (see att.) which just goes to show how much of a sham the whole OTA contracting business really is.

The Chinese believe that their S&T community has developed, their industrial capacity has produced, and their operators fielded what they need as far as these systems are concerned. At least the initial weapons. They continue to out test the rest of the world and will no doubt continue on a rapid trajectory of improvement across the gamut. The DOD takes their capability serious enough to demand GPI's so it must be challenging enough for them.

Meanwhile, we have folks sell us pie in the sky ideas like developing a new fighter every five years when we can't even field a sub-system in that timeframe.

No one is panicking. But good to level set and realize that you are trailing some of your opponents and must catch up. And catching up seems quite unlikely in the long term if you don't significantly accelerate your pace of development, testing, and investment. All those claims were made by DOD officials as recently as last year. But they never really ramped up which is a clear indication that there are delays. Those could be short term delays (few months to a few years) or long term delays (complete program terminations). We won't know until next year.

On top of that, we have folks already out there saying the weapons we can't seem to design and field on time, are too costly even if they are developed, perform to specification and fielded. So there is a small chance that we never really build up an inventory because folks think a LRHW should cost as much as a JDAM or a JASSM.

Backing away and looking at the bigger picture, it is really about prioritization. We are very advanced when it comes to scramjets. So why does the AF or Navy not field a weapon yet? Because until very recently (literally 12 months ago), they didn't want one. Overall, the DOD is not super interested in hypersonic. At least not when it comes to investment. We spend around $3.5 billion on offensive hypersonic development in FY-22. That's 3% of the total RDT&E budget for the DOD. Does that seem like the level of investment coming from someone greatly interested in dominating this in terms of fielded weapons? How much did they spend on acquiring capabilities like PGM's, stealth aircraft, advanced command and control etc. historically? Or mastering ballistic missiles, missile defense or even space launch? If you invest such a small amount and have operators reluctant to launch weapons programs you will be late. No one is going to create test infrastructure or an industrial base for weapons the services dont' really want. We do have a roadmap that if enacted will place on a glide path to dominate numerically particularly with scramjets. But for that to be successful it needs services to buy in. Will CQ Brown put in a program that demands 2000 HACM's to be fielded? They have built programs to get them that level but so far the services have been reluctant to launch full fledged programs choosing instead to wait and watch utilizing OTA prototyping contracts.

Everything's going to be fine.

As long as we pretend everything is fine nothing bad will happen am I right?

 

[bring_it_on]

Meanwhile B-21 dropped JSOW-ER would do 250 miles for $500k.

Why would you drop a HACM if a JSOW (the ER version was cancelled) would suffice? The operational impact of hypersonic weapons is around prompt strike and penetrating defending targets. If you don’t need that you don’t use it. This is also why we have a JDAM and a JSOW co-existing, or why we use the JSOW and prefer to use a JASSM-ER in other cases. There isn't a one size fits all weapon, and of course the AF hasn't said that hypersonics are the answer to every target.

@In_A_Dream, If you set aside the rhetoric coming form the DOD (or the Trump DOD in the past), we are really not very bullish on hypersonic weapons. At least not at the level of past high tech systems where they've moved as an organization and dominated or looked to dominate through continuous and persistent investment. No service really wants to put its hand up and go after IB scaling or create a program of record. To do so, they'll have to shed something else and create that space which they really don't want to. So what we are really talking about here is a small scale fielding of capability in the 2024-2030 timeframe with no real clear path to production scaling. At some point even the industry will lose interest.

 

[Josh_TN]

I'd like to see you qualify that claim with regards to hypersonics.

Technologically speaking, the US is fine. In terms of deployable locations where it matters? That's going to be a strategically sensitive subject for the smaller neighboring countries who do business with Russia & China.

The US is barely into testing with little in the way of industrial base and nothing in service. The same cannot be said of China, which has several systems actually in production and in service.

I'm aware of one systems in service, the DF-17. What are the others?

As for who's ahead, I'd say Russian and China currently because they have deployed systems. But if the US can make an inexpensive air breather work, which HAWC apparently validated, then I think the US can leap ahead fairly quickly. A HAWC like missile is probably in the 3-5 million price range and a B-52 could likely carry twenty of them. If HACM gets off the ground quickly, then along with CPS and AGM-183 the US can quickly gain ground on its opponents with a much more cost effective weapon than boost glide.

Additionally, while the US is behind in the development and fielding of hypersonics, it is probably already at the forefront of counter hypersonics thanks to its extensive ABM efforts. There's already contracts to boost test sensor layer satellites within a year or so. So when the US does catch up, and it will within 3-5 years, it will also be firmly ahead in *counter* hypersonics.

 

[Josh_TN]

[SNIP] Everything's coming to form for the US however, and operational/capable/deadly platforms will be fielded before we know it, but where to put those Army batteries? [SNIP]

Guam. UK. Done. Also countries might be a lot more amenable to basing US weapons as China and Russia's rhetoric and posture continue to be more aggressive. The 'Dark Eagle' (hate that name by the way) can fit into a C-17 AFAIK; it's not like you'd need to build a base ahead of time to deploy them somewhere. It basically is the equivalent of dropping off an MIM-104 battery.

 

[Josh_TN]

It's looking like hypersonic weapons are gonna be enormously, prohibitively expensive. Several tens of millions upwards to even the price of modern fighter jets. With that kind of price tag maybe reusable scramjet powered platforms unloading cheaper munitions are more attractive? Maybe for the needs of the U.S. that is the sweet spot, and thusly that explains why they're seemingly reluctant about going all-in with the current slate of HGVs in development. What is optimal for China is not the same for the U.S. China is purposing HGVs for striking hugely juicy targets (CSGs), so even very pricey one time use silver bullets can achieve a good cost exchange ratio. The U.S. by contrast has a much more diffuse target set, so would prefer/require reusable hypersonic aircraft.

China also has CSGs. It is likely that the US can range one of the three major Chinese fleet bases from Guam with the Army's version of CPS. Anything in port, or even under construction in dry dock, could be a target at that point.

 

[bring_it_on]

I'm aware of one systems in service, the DF-17. What are the others?

Yes that is the one deployed while other efforts are still be matured. So that's one system vs ZERO for either of the US services. But then China has a lead in terms of offensive intermediate range systems so they need not rush systems into the field as they have the luxury of producing more of the ones they already have. Russian deployment on the other hand is more of a strategic system so not very relevant and also not much of a competition at the industrial level. China is very much the pacing threat here since they seem to have the R&D base now, are testing at some very alarming levels (as per DOD officials), and has an operator community fully committed to buying these systems. They are creating a mix of pumping a lot of money in their R&D and test institutions, have an industrial base that is growing, and operators that actually want these systems. Its the perfect condition for them to look to dominate this including future reusable tech.

But if the US can make an inexpensive air breather work, which HAWC apparently validated, then I think the US can leap ahead fairly quickly. A HAWC like missile is probably in the 3-5 million price range and a B-52 could likely carry twenty of them.

Yes HAWC and HACM are important. But until a mere 12 months ago, the AF didn't have a weapons program and the one they have now (HACM) doesn't start till next year. Because of the delay in creating that effort, HACM will probably not show up as an operational prototype until 2026-2027 timeframe. They could have had something now had they partnered more closely with HAWC (like they are doing now with ARRW) instead of leaving the service lab run that with DARPA. Somewhere around 2025 they should begin transitioning to a program of record so large scale production (beyond the OTA fielded prototypes) won't come until closer to 2030. Navy is working on that timeframe as well. I'm not willing to bet that China won't field a working scramjet weapon before then. This was an area where we had loads of experience, and expertise but the services sat on it and never had clear operational need translating to a weapons program until very recently. Hence the delay (none of what you may have in the lab matters in the competition). Fielding these require upfront investment to create the IB and capacity. These are one time costs that someone has to absorb and the acquisition community has become too comfortable with the current munition portfolio that is cheap with a well established industrial base.

 

[sferrin]

Let's not forget the DF-21 & 23. I realize they're not gliders but they can't be dismissed. Then there was the "'round-the-world" glider shot. Also they've got this thing in the works:

 

[In_A_Dream]

@In_A_Dream, If you set aside the rhetoric coming form the DOD (or the Trump DOD in the past), we are really not very bullish on hypersonic weapons. At least not at the level of past high tech systems where they've moved as an organization and dominated or looked to dominate through continuous and persistent investment. No service really wants to put its hand up and go after IB scaling or create a program of record. To do so, they'll have to shed something else and create that space which they really don't want to. So what we are really talking about here is a small scale fielding of capability in the 2024-2030 timeframe with no real clear path to production scaling. At some point even the industry will lose interest.

That's the way it appears right now because you have to think about the strategic implications of dramatically scaling up weapons that have strategic consequences. Imagine if the US tomorrow said they are going to produce 100 B-21s in 2022, and continue to produce 100/year until 2030. That would freak a lot of people out right? Both allies & adversaries. It would be the same impact for a dramatic increase in hypersonic weapons production.

We are not at a point yet where that needs to happen (but it will come soon enough) and there are several factors that come into play that aren't regularly covered by the DOD Bloggers and MSM. The above being one of them.

 

[Firefinder]

That or the US decides to lever it stealth advantage and just make one of the dozen stealth cruise missile designs as a full on Tomahawk replacement in similar numbers.

10k Stealth Tomahawks as a threat will be pause worthy for anyone with half a brain.

 

[bring_it_on]

That's the way it appears right now because you have to think about the strategic implications of dramatically scaling up weapons that have strategic consequences. Imagine if the US tomorrow said they are going to produce 100 B-21s in 2022, and continue to produce 100/year until 2030. That would freak a lot of people out right? Both allies & adversaries. It would be the same impact for a dramatic increase in hypersonic weapons production.

That makes no sense. Empowered DOD officials have said as much (producing thousands of hypersonic weapons). But there is no service interest at the moment because each effort is currently being executed via prototyping contracts with no indiciation of either transitioning into an official program of record in an accelerated fashion. At least the Navy converted its SM-6 1B effort into a MDAP..and while that added 3 or so years to the IOC it is for the good now a ACAT1 effort with full programatic support. No hypersonic weapon is at that stage now. But none of that obviously matters because each program is having developmental issues at the moment. So they are very much in the "invention" phase which was the original point - we are still mastering this as far as weapons are concerned while China has fielded its initial weapons and is working on follow on efforts. I don't know why this is so hard to accept.

 

[sferrin]

That or the US decides to lever it stealth advantage and just make one of the dozen stealth cruise missile designs as a full on Tomahawk replacement in similar numbers.

10k Stealth Tomahawks as a threat will be pause worthy for anyone with half a brain.

The most dangerous targets would be long gone by the time a subsonic missile, stealth or not, covered 1500 miles.

 

[Forest Green]

View attachment 669043Let's not forget the DF-21 & 23. I realize they're not gliders but they can't be dismissed. Then there was the "'round-the-world" glider shot. Also they've got this thing in the works:

23 or 26?

 

[sferrin]

View attachment 669043Let's not forget the DF-21 & 23. I realize they're not gliders but they can't be dismissed. Then there was the "'round-the-world" glider shot. Also they've got this thing in the works:

23 or 26?

26

 

[bloody sky]

Seems like we will into the Golden age of US Hypersonic weapon , late 2019 .

No,my friends.

 

[AN/AWW-14(V)]

pretty decent summary from twitter

someone remembers about test undisclosed navy's weapon? interesting that is program was

Navy Conducts Flight Test to Support Conventional Prompt Strike From Ohio-Class SSGNs - USNI News

This post has been updated to note that SSGN submarines, not SSBNs, would likely take on the conventional prompt global strike mission, if the Pentagon were to continue with this capability development. The Navy Strategic Systems Program and the Department of Defense this week tested a...

news.usni.org

 

[bobbymike]

Hypersonic Strike Aircraft Capability Is Part Of The Air Force's Shadowy Project Mayhem

The Air Force wants this hypersonic platform to be able to carry out strike and intelligence-gathering missions with one of three different payloads.

www.thedrive.com

 

[bobbymike]

https://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/68295/21Sep_Banuchi%20et%20al.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

 

[bobbymike]

Defense spending act makes hypersonic a top priority, calling for billions in investment

Significant hypersonic research and development in recent years have highlighted its promising opportunity, but also shed light on its destructive potential.

www.cnbc.com

 

[jsport]

Defense spending act makes hypersonic a top priority, calling for billions in investment

Significant hypersonic research and development in recent years have highlighted its promising opportunity, but also shed light on its destructive potential.

www.cnbc.com

Then why not spend the $ on aircraft and air launched rather than these long range ballistics?

 

[aonestudio]

Why Do US Hypersonic Missile Tests Keep Failing? They’re Going Too Fast

If it’s so important to deploy these new missile types, development schedules should be revised to promote success.

www.defenseone.com

 

[bobbymike]

LRHW off a ship image

 

[publiusr]

A recent article had it that a design with intakes to either side from two or three decades back inspired China's-but the article had an image of a stealth jet drone. Now if they launched two belly mount intake craft with dorsal-spine back to back-opposite how Ron Miller thought Cosmos 881 and 882 were mounted-VA capsules actually-that might explain the look of one craft having two intakes-which then deploys another object...if so...the real goal might be to determine how well we image craft in orbit-shaking the tree to see what chatter falls out. All from a TSV concept NASA rejected. All I remember from then was SLI.

 

[aonestudio]

Bringing Hypersonic Missiles to the Fleet: A Case Study Analysis - Naval News

In September, 2021, Sebastian I. Banuchi, Thomas M. Hughes, Cole Rice, and Thia N. Tank had a report published by the U.S. Navy’s Naval Postgraduate School titled: “Bringing hypersonic Missile Capability to the Fleet.” Their System Engineering Report essentially focused on how to transport...

www.navalnews.com

 

[bobbymike]

Analyzing the Potential Disruptive Effects of Hypersonic Missiles on Strategy and Joint Wa

There are conflicting assertions about the implications of the United States, Russia, and China developing and deploying high-speed maneuvering weapons delivery systems—more commonly referred to as

ndupress.ndu.edu

 

[bobbymike]

Boeing M5 concept at AIAA SciTech Conference

https://twitter.com/x/status/1478491208452227072

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/AvWeekGuy/status/1478491208452227072

 

[publiusr]

That's a good underside view-haven't seen that.

 

[sferrin]

Boeing M5 concept at AIAA SciTech Conference

https://twitter.com/x/status/1478491208452227072

View: https://mobile.twitter.com/AvWeekGuy/status/1478491208452227072

Not holding my breath. Still waiting for this:



and this:

 

[Josh_TN]

The tech has come a long way and more over the US seems actually willing to fund and produce systems in this regime now. Previously there wasn't a perceived need to justify the costs; the rise of foreign hypersonic projects changed that equation. I don't know if this particular project has a future but I suspect the US fields a hypersonic reusable aircraft demonstrator by end of decade.

 

[bring_it_on]

^^ Willing to fund seems to be a pretty significant leap there. There is no indication that the DOD has any appetite or has made any room in its budgets to fund a future reusable hypersonic platform. That will probably take annual funding levels close to what the DOD is spending on all hypersonic weapons combined currently (which isn't much to begin with). Services are too busy trying to recover their test schedules from 2020 so probably don't have time for this..

 

[Josh_TN]

I interpret the MAYHEM program as a desire to explicitly develop a reusable capability. It might ultimately get cancelled before any demonstration aircraft can be created, but it seems to me USAF wants to go in that direction.

 

[bring_it_on]

I interpret the MAYHEM program as a desire to explicitly develop a reusable capability.

Notice of Contract Action: Expendable Hypersonic Multi-Mission Air-Breathing Demonstrator (Mayhem) Program​

https://sam.gov/opp/76cb1a3ba99e4926b3413e0a3cdb4489/view

They may desire a lot of things, but unless there is a huge classified budget their hypersonic portfolio is a joke when it comes to reusable systems. Given how poorly the AF is managing its current hypersonic portfolio that's probably a good thing.

 

[Josh_TN]

Fair enough.

 

[Rhinocrates]

Some more details and a new rendering.

Check Out This New Rendering Of Boeing's Hypersonic Aircraft Design

Boeing has also provided new details about its hypersonic aircraft concept.

www.thedrive.com