Current US hypersonic weapons projects. (General)

We really do need to pick up the pace but in fairness the reason Russia and China are so ahead is because they are both at a major disadvantage. Hypersonics should be seen as asymmetric answers to our most powerful weapons systems and particularly our vast military infrastructure across the globe.

we have a totally different set of military ideologies to Russia and China they do overlap quite often but in some areas the differences in methods are very clearly seen. For example our medium and short range air defense which range from good to downright mediocre with our shorads capabilities (not talking naval air defense where we are second to none).

I'm not excusing our lagging behind but it is predictable figuring our situation recently jn making massive transitions and tweaking our military ideologies to meet and totally exceed our rivals across the spectrum.
 
TMA1 said:
We really do need to pick up the pace but in fairness the reason Russia and China are so ahead is because they are both at a major disadvantage. Hypersonics should be seen as asymmetric answers to our most powerful weapons systems and particularly our vast military infrastructure across the globe.

we have a totally different set of military ideologies to Russia and China they do overlap quite often but in some areas the differences in methods are very clearly seen. For example our medium and short range air defense which range from good to downright mediocre with our shorads capabilities (not talking naval air defense where we are second to none).

I'm not excusing our lagging behind but it is predictable figuring our situation recently jn making massive transitions and tweaking our military ideologies to meet and totally exceed our rivals across the spectrum.
Click to expand...
I agree that the US and China/Russia have completely different goals for their hypersonics. The latter are primarily concerned with targeting US ships and infrastructure and noticeably are generally much larger weapons. The US on the other hand is predominantly interested in destroying land based relocatable/mobile targets in a timely fashion, with opponent hypersonics being a prime target along with air defenses. The US boost glide weapons are much smaller in comparison, at least in terms of gliders: they would be rather inadequate for infrastructure or large ship targets. For that target set, the US can largely rely on cruise missile currently.

But that said, the goal of the introduction of hypersonics is broadly deterrence, regardless of the target set, and the US is quite behind. Hopefully AGM-183 testing goes well enough that there is an experimental capability in couple years, along with the LRHW and hopefully CPS on Zumwalt class. In several years the US might have a very modest boost glide capability across the services. IMO the potential leap forward would be HACM, which looks like it will be dramatically cheaper, faster to produce, and have a much more prolific platform deployment (F-15 initially). But for the rest of the decade at least the US will be playing catch up in terms of numbers, if not technology.
 
news.usni.org

Report to Congress on Hypersonic Weapons - USNI News

The following is the Jan. 10, 2022, Congressional Research Service report, Hypersonic Weapons: Background and Issues for Congress. From the report The United States has actively pursued the development of hypersonic weapons—maneuvering weapons that fly at speeds of at least Mach 5—as a part of...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
 
SAN DIEGO, Jan. 10, 2023 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc. (Nasdaq: KTOS), a leading National Security Solutions provider, announced today that its Defense & Rocket System Services (DRSS) Division, in collaboration with Kratos’ Unmanned Systems Division, has received a contract from its prime teammate and partner Leidos to support the Expendable Hypersonic Multi-Mission ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance) and Strike Program, known as Mayhem. This new contract award will support the Air Force Research Laboratory’s (AFRL) development of an air-breathing hypersonic weapon system over its initial 51-month period of performance. The initial task order will conduct the System Requirements Review (SRR) and Conceptual Design Review (CoDR) in a Digital Engineering (DE) environment.

In partnership with Leidos, Kratos will serve as a member of the System Design Agent (SDA) team for the Mayhem program, which also includes Calspan and Draper. The SDA’s goal is to design a system that allows rapid relevant technology insertions utilizing the expertise and capabilities from a variety of industry partners. The role of the SDA for this program will also include bringing the best of industry together to perform research and development necessary for production of air-breathing multi-mission hypersonic system prototypes. The SDA will oversee designs, prototypes, and tests to ultimately produce and deliver a technical data package for high performance, relevant hypersonic weapon systems.

Air-breathing hypersonic systems use scramjet engines to generate thrust, propelling the vehicle across long distances at speeds greater than Mach 5. The SDA team is tasked with designing and developing a large-class version that surpasses current air-breathing systems in both range and payload capacity and is responsible for delivering a hypersonic system design to include airframe, propulsion system, booster, avionics, and vehicle subsystems.

“This opportunity will provide a unique capability for our Warfighters, and we’re excited to be part of the new Mayhem program. As a critical part of the SDA team, Kratos will drive mission success by leveraging our flight-proven agile digital engineering principles and extensive experience in high performance propulsion, hypersonic, and air vehicle design,” said Dave Carter, President of DRSS. “Kratos has successfully developed and flown several hypersonic “systems” over the last decade, and our internally funded hypersonic investments in unique systems, including Zeus and Erinyes are beginning to pay dividends in important national security solutions.”

Eric DeMarco, President and CEO of Kratos, said “Kratos’ mission is to be a disruptive transformation agent to the U.S. National Security industrial base and market, rapidly designing, developing, producing and fielding affordable systems and technology. The Mayhem Hypersonic Systems program award with our strategic partner Leidos is a recent representative example of our continued success.”​
Click to expand...
 
TMA1 said:
We really do need to pick up the pace but in fairness the reason Russia and China are so ahead is because they are both at a major disadvantage. Hypersonics should be seen as asymmetric answers to our most powerful weapons systems and particularly our vast military infrastructure across the globe.

we have a totally different set of military ideologies to Russia and China they do overlap quite often but in some areas the differences in methods are very clearly seen. For example our medium and short range air defense which range from good to downright mediocre with our shorads capabilities (not talking naval air defense where we are second to none).

I'm not excusing our lagging behind but it is predictable figuring our situation recently jn making massive transitions and tweaking our military ideologies to meet and totally exceed our rivals across the spectrum.
Click to expand...

The carrot comes before the horse.
 
aonestudio said:
www.defensenews.com

Q&A: The State of Hypersonics

The potential of hypersonic weapons has military leaders rethinking everything they knew about missiles.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
DN: As an offshoot of that, what are the main engineering challenges that you’re facing? What are the big problems that you’re looking at and saying, “OK. How do we crack this one?”

NS: There are many of them. I would say material systems and processes is a key one. We have folks that are developing brand new materials in some cases. We can develop some components at a small rate today. So, we’re still learning exactly how all those materials work together. And also, more importantly, we’re still learning how we transition what we can build a handful of into something that we can build at a more reasonable rate.

would have to believe this learning is the most important issue and should not be rushed too much. final products need be very cost effective before being built in any numbers. Same concept is true for NGAD, a plane which will be asked to do eerything.
 
news.usni.org

Navy Awards HII Planning Contract for Zumwalt Hypersonic Upgrades - USNI News

HII’s Ingalls Shipbuilding won a $10.5 million contract to plan for the modernization period of the first two Zumwalt-class guided-missile destroyers that will include the installation of hypersonic missiles on the two warships. Ingalls will work until December to complete the planning portion...
news.usni.org news.usni.org
 

DOD readies first-ever East Coast long-range offensive hypersonic weapon test | InsideDefense.com

The Defense Department is readying a first-ever hypersonic weapon test over the Atlantic Ocean, preparing to launch a rocket from Florida that will loft a glide vehicle thousands of miles into the open water in a high-stakes assessment that aims to validate design of a new, two-stage booster...
insidedefense.com insidedefense.com

US readies first-ever East Coast long-range offensive hypersonic weapon test

The Defense Department is readying a first-ever hypersonic weapon test over the Atlantic Ocean, preparing to launch a rocket from Florida that will loft a glide vehicle thousands of miles toward Africa in a high-stakes assessment that aims to validate design of a new, two-stage booster paired...
defence.pk

"The Defense Department is readying a first-ever hypersonic weapon test over the Atlantic Ocean, preparing to launch a rocket from Florida that will loft a glide vehicle thousands of miles toward Africa in a high-stakes assessment that aims to validate design of a new, two-stage booster paired with the ultra-fast maneuvering payload. Nickolas H. Guertin, director of operational test and evaluation, revealed this development --specifically that a prototype version of the Army’s Long Range Weapon will launch from Cape Canaveral..."
 
Paywalled. Presumably from the synopsis (two staged booster) this is a CSP test? Seems strange they wouldn't have tested it off the west coast. Perhaps the NOTAM would have interfered with too much commercial traffic in that direction.
 
Josh_TN said:
Paywalled. Presumably from the synopsis (two staged booster) this is a CSP test? Seems strange they wouldn't have tested it off the west coast. Perhaps the NOTAM would have interfered with too much commercial traffic in that direction.
Click to expand...
“A new two stage booster”, very interesting. I’m hoping for a two stage all solid Antares with a 25k payload. That would shake things up a bit :D
 
Last edited:
Josh_TN said:
Paywalled. Presumably from the synopsis (two staged booster) this is a CSP test? Seems strange they wouldn't have tested it off the west coast. Perhaps the NOTAM would have interfered with too much commercial traffic in that direction.
Click to expand...
Good sources write that hypersonic testing tempo needs to dramatically ramp up to mature technology and functionality, and in turn mature manufacturing processes for building more prototypes for more tests. Restricting to one range on the west coast creates another burden on already maxed out west coast ranges that is testing other weapon systems. So the east coast and even the Gulf of Mexico test range has been tapped for hypersonic testing. Don't ask me how the Gulf of Mexico works, but the Air Force live fire and target range is there. They're repurposing some RQ-4 Global Hawks for down range tracking and data collection for hypersonic testing. There aren't enough tracking ships nor time and money to build them. "People" are watching and I'm guessing that alternating and concealing the tests until NOTAMS are issued to one of the coasts keeps them off balance too.
 
300+nm.

The missile recorded speeds faster than Mach 5, or 3,836.35 mph, at an altitude above 60,000 feet for more than 300 nautical miles. It was mounted to the wing of a U.S. Air Force B-52 strategic bomber and launched mid-air.
Click to expand...
 
Forest Green said:
300+nm.

The missile recorded speeds faster than Mach 5, or 3,836.35 mph, at an altitude above 60,000 feet for more than 300 nautical miles. It was mounted to the wing of a U.S. Air Force B-52 strategic bomber and launched mid-air.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I believe all of the tests were stated to have that combination of range, speed, and altitude. Actually I thought the Raytheon tests specifically stated 70,000+ feet. Broadly speaking they seem to be shooting for the same envelope as the X-51, just in a less expensive package that scales better to mass production (plus warhead and hopefully some kind of terminal guidance).
 
Josh_TN said:
So were there a total of three Raytheon and two LM HACW tests? Raytheon is the HACM contractor, correct? So LMs role is wrapped up?
Click to expand...
I think Raytheon and Lockheed had two successful HAWC flights each, including Lockheed's test yesterday. Raytheon was awarded the HACM contract. HAWC is being retagged as MOHAWC to continue testing. Just conjecture on my part, but Lockheed may continue testing more designs in MOHAWC.
 
Last edited:
All the CBO reports I’ve read since the 80’s I think most were “casting doubts” on weapon systems from M1 to Trident to MX to Los Angeles class SSNs to ALCMs to B-1s/2s to DDGs etc.

If there was a CBO (“Caveman Budget Office”) there probably would have been a “CBO casts doubts on rocks and pointed sticks” report.

JUST IN: Report Casts Doubt on Value of Hypersonic Weapons

JUST IN: Report Casts Doubt on Value of Hypersonic Weapons
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org www.nationaldefensemagazine.org
www.cbo.gov

U.S. Hypersonic Weapons and Alternatives

CBO analyzes the hypersonic missiles being developed by the U.S. military and compares them with less expensive existing or potential weapons that might fill similar roles, such as cruise missiles or ballistic missiles.
www.cbo.gov www.cbo.gov
 
I found this interesting newly posted video concerning hypersonic weapons that talks about the concept:


Hypersonic missiles (HCM) and Hypersonic Glide Vehicles (HGV) are not necessarily new but have received a lot of attention as of late. With Russia (Avangard, Tsirkon, Kinzhal), China (DF-ZF) and the US (ARRW, GPI etc) developing and producing new hypersonics and countermeasures, let's break this topic open and talk about the basics: What are hypersonic missiles, why are they scary, what are the countermeasures and what about stealth?
Click to expand...
 
Registration is currently open for students who wish to apply. Prospective students should hold an ABET-accredited degree in aeronautical, aerospace, astronautical or mechanical engineering with a cumulative GPA of 3.0 (on a 4.0 point basis) in that degree. Waivers to the degree or GPA requirement may be considered on an individual basis.
Click to expand...

www.wpafb.af.mil

New graduate certificate in hypersonic flight offered

WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio--The Air Force Institute of Technology’s Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics now offers a graduate certificate program in hypersonic flight. The field of
www.wpafb.af.mil
 
What is exactly the difference between Navy's CPS missile and Army's LRHW missile? They seem to share both the booster and the glider, is that correct? So, aside from various container differences due to naval (and later on submarine usage) usage, how do they actually differ?
 
totoro said:
What is exactly the difference between Navy's CPS missile and Army's LRHW missile? They seem to share both the booster and the glider, is that correct? So, aside from various container differences due to naval (and later on submarine usage) usage, how do they actually differ?
Click to expand...

The missile itself is exactly the same; the Army and Navy were in such a rush they pooled resources to buy the same all up round and the Army accepted a missile that was optimized for the USN's more challenging launch environment (ie submerged firing). I'm guessing that explains the rather blunt shaping of the nose.
 
Why is common hypersonic glide body warhead using a double conical design with 4 large fins, which is a symmetrical design.
And the agm183 arrw warhead uses a flat body assymetrical design with two wingtips and no fins?
What are the advatanges and disadvantages of each design?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom