34.5" is a lot less of a headache than I feared, not even in KEI territory. Still going to require a new VLS spec, and the length is going to make backfit to DDG-51 or FFG(X).... problematic.
I am going to risk being proved wrong one day and say neither FFG(X) or any currently authorised DDG51 variant is ever going to carry this system. The missile alone is a third longer than a strike length Mk-41 is deep.
On the other hand, Virginia Payload Tubes are said to be 87 inches in diameter which means they should be able to hold 3 rounds including missile canisters and internal structure etc. Mathematically 4 would work but there probably wouldn't be room for the canisters etc.
The NAP study indicated they could fit four missiles of this diameter provided the depth charge shock reqs
were similar to those for Trident rather than the much greater shock levels they have for Tomahawk in the SSGNs.
VLS was never a serious consideration for intermediate range+ CPGS.
Big flat LHA decks. But I’m under no illusions this would ever happenI wouldn't expect it either given the specs, but someone is going to make a case for it somewhere, and I don't trust the current Navy to fight against the notion as strongly as they should. What they should do is call back to when TLAM helped make the case for big MK41 ships and present this as the opportune and necessary moment to reset expectations for what size combatants will be if they going to carry the next generation of missiles.34.5" is a lot less of a headache than I feared, not even in KEI territory. Still going to require a new VLS spec, and the length is going to make backfit to DDG-51 or FFG(X).... problematic.
I am going to risk being proved wrong one day and say neither FFG(X) or any currently authorised DDG51 variant is ever going to carry this system. The missile alone is a third longer than a strike length Mk-41 is deep.
On the other hand, Virginia Payload Tubes are said to be 87 inches in diameter which means they should be able to hold 3 rounds including missile canisters and internal structure etc. Mathematically 4 would work but there probably wouldn't be room for the canisters etc.
VLS was never a serious consideration for intermediate range+ CPGS.
The head of Naval Sea Systems Command, Vice Adm. Thomas Moore, told an audience at a conference of naval engineers that...“Vertical launch system has been a real game changer for us. We can shoot any number of things out of those launchers,” Moore said. “We’ll probably change those out and upgrade them for prompt strike weapons down the road.”
The ability of the ship's Vertical Launch System to accommodate longer and larger diameter missiles for increased speed and range of weapons.
VLS was never a serious consideration for intermediate range+ CPGS.
From the head of Sea Systems Command:
The head of Naval Sea Systems Command, Vice Adm. Thomas Moore, told an audience at a conference of naval engineers that...“Vertical launch system has been a real game changer for us. We can shoot any number of things out of those launchers,” Moore said. “We’ll probably change those out and upgrade them for prompt strike weapons down the road.”
From the Large surface Combatant RFI:
The ability of the ship's Vertical Launch System to accommodate longer and larger diameter missiles for increased speed and range of weapons.
Admittedly, the Navy is clear that subs are the first priority, but the ambition to deploy CPGS on surface vessels seems to be there. As I said previously I highly doubt any currently in-service or authorised DDG51 will ever carry a CPGS, hypersonic weapons maybe but only if/when they can shrink the package.
Wasn’t DARPAs Arclight a 2000 km range modified SM-2 with a 250 lbs warhead?VLS was never a serious consideration for intermediate range+ CPGS.
From the head of Sea Systems Command:
The head of Naval Sea Systems Command, Vice Adm. Thomas Moore, told an audience at a conference of naval engineers that...“Vertical launch system has been a real game changer for us. We can shoot any number of things out of those launchers,” Moore said. “We’ll probably change those out and upgrade them for prompt strike weapons down the road.”
From the Large surface Combatant RFI:
The ability of the ship's Vertical Launch System to accommodate longer and larger diameter missiles for increased speed and range of weapons.
Admittedly, the Navy is clear that subs are the first priority, but the ambition to deploy CPGS on surface vessels seems to be there. As I said previously I highly doubt any currently in-service or authorised DDG51 will ever carry a CPGS, hypersonic weapons maybe but only if/when they can shrink the package.
There's no mention of intermediate range CPGS there for a reason.
2,000nm.Wasn’t DARPAs Arclight a 2000 km range modified SM-2 with a 250 lbs warhead?
Sorry. It was a reference to ArcLight.
There's no mention of intermediate range CPGS there for a reason.
Interesting video about a late 90's Mach 4 hypersonic penetrator test.
Any material on this test?Interesting video about a late 90's Mach 4 hypersonic penetrator test.
I think this was a Pershing II MaRV (Storm) test; 45 feet into granite @ 4000 fps.
Other less well-diagnosed experiments by Orbital Sciences Corporation that were presented to
the SAB committee indicated that they could deliver a 300-kg (660-lb) penetrator with an impact
velocity of 4,000 ft/sec into an earth granite target. The measured depth of penetration was 45 ft.
The penetrator that was recovered after the experiment indicated little erosion and loss of mechanical
strength, although the penetrator did appear to be slightly bent. The length of the penetrator
was 5 ft and the diameter was 9 inches, which gives L/D = 6.6. The areal mass M/A = 10.4 psi.
In another experiment, a 4-ft-long, 256-lb steel penetrator impacted granite at a velocity of 3,300 ft/sec.
The penetration depth was 31 ft in granite. The diameter of the penetrator was 6 inches, which gives
L/D = 8 and an M/A = 9 psi. The penetrator in these tests was a solid body with no interior space for a warhead.
In a practical device, such space would be required, which would weaken the mechanical strength
of the penetrator and reduce the penetration depth.
There was another in theInteresting video about a late 90's Mach 4 hypersonic penetrator test.
I think this was a Pershing II MaRV (Storm) test; 45 feet into granite @ 4000 fps.
There was another in the 80s and it was a Sandia project. I used to have a book that mentioned it. Don't know whatever happened to that book.Interesting video about a late 90's Mach 4 hypersonic penetrator test.
I think this was a Pershing II MaRV (Storm) test; 45 feet into granite @ 4000 fps.
In the 1980s the United States developed and tested but did not deploy a nuclear EPW intended for the intermediate-range Pershing II missile.
This warhead, called the W86, was also a modification of the B61.12 It was about two meters long and 0.2 meters in diameter, and could penetrate
less than 10 meters of granite or hardened concrete.
House cut could derail Army, Navy plans to rapidly field new hypersonic weapons
A House-proposed cut to the Pentagon's fiscal year 2020 request for the Conventional Prompt Strike program -- the U.S. military's marquee hypersonic strike project -- would knock both the Army and Navy off schedule from current plans to deploy variants of the new ultra-fast, boost-glide weapon in 2023 and 2025 respectively.
Actually since I can't read that particular article I looked up the general trend and it seems the main question is the leap from famine, (past DoD interest in hypersonic weapons) to obsession (current "we will field a weapon immeditatly") with little planned oversight or accountability in the development and deployment programs. The other concern is that the DoD is getting this money to deploy these weapons by axing and cutting maintenance and sustainment funding on current systems. In some cases good such as not continuing to procure M1 tanks the Army can't man or maintain, but in others not so good given reduced funding for on-going development and deployment programs and reducing funding for maintennance and upkeep of existing inventory.
(This specifically is due to the White House military budget cuts in the main spending proposal which cut R&D and future systems funding deeply. And ya, diverting funding for the Wall has not helped the situation at all either)
Most of the DoD proposed "development and deployment" funding has been moved to "research and development" funding as a line item. The idea being that they can't then simply toss money at the contractors and see what sticks which was the original 'plan' for development. The funding can always be switched back to "development and deployment" once Congress has been convinced that the programs have the proper oversight and accountability.
These are pretty much the same issues Congress has been having with the DoD hypersonic weapons program(s) since the early 2000s due to the services on-again/off-again interest in hypersonic weapons.
Randy
Actually since I can't read that particular article I looked up the general trend and it seems the main question is the leap from famine, (past DoD interest in hypersonic weapons) to obsession (current "we will field a weapon immeditatly") with little planned oversight or accountability in the development and deployment programs. The other concern is that the DoD is getting this money to deploy these weapons by axing and cutting maintenance and sustainment funding on current systems. In some cases good such as not continuing to procure M1 tanks the Army can't man or maintain, but in others not so good given reduced funding for on-going development and deployment programs and reducing funding for maintennance and upkeep of existing inventory.
(This specifically is due to the White House military budget cuts in the main spending proposal which cut R&D and future systems funding deeply. And ya, diverting funding for the Wall has not helped the situation at all either)
Most of the DoD proposed "development and deployment" funding has been moved to "research and development" funding as a line item. The idea being that they can't then simply toss money at the contractors and see what sticks which was the original 'plan' for development. The funding can always be switched back to "development and deployment" once Congress has been convinced that the programs have the proper oversight and accountability.
These are pretty much the same issues Congress has been having with the DoD hypersonic weapons program(s) since the early 2000s due to the services on-again/off-again interest in hypersonic weapons.
Randy
Actually since I can't read that particular article I looked up the general trend and it seems the main question is the leap from famine, (past DoD interest in hypersonic weapons) to obsession (current "we will field a weapon immeditatly") with little planned oversight or accountability in the development and deployment programs. . The funding can always be switched back to "development and deployment" once Congress has been convinced that the programs have the proper oversight and accountability.
These are pretty much the same issues Congress has been having with the DoD hypersonic weapons program(s) since the early 2000s due to the services on-again/off-again interest in hypersonic weapons.
Randy
Bad link, but new news....? Recent Google search came up with this.
Air Force Research Lab preparing for second hypersonic ... - Jane's 360
https://www.janes.com/.../air-force-research-lab-preparing-for-second-hype...
6 days ago - AFRL achieved over 13,000 pounds of thrust from a scramjet engine during testing at Arnold Air Force Base, Tennessee. The 5.5 m-long Northrop Grumman ...
I wonder what the 20,000lb class weapons are.
B-52 Bomber Flies For The First Time With New Hypersonic Missile Under Its Wing
The AGM-183A is one of at least three hypersonic weapons the Air Force wants to add to the bomber's arsenal in the coming years.www.thedrive.com
In June 2018, the Air Force announced it was looking to purchase new pylons for the B-52 to carry multiple, unspecified 20,000-pound class weapons.
Bad link, but new news....? Recent Google search came up with this.
Air Force Research Lab preparing for second hypersonic ... - Jane's 360
https://www.janes.com/.../air-force-research-lab-preparing-for-second-hype...
6 days ago - AFRL achieved over 13,000 pounds of thrust from a scramjet engine during testing at Arnold Air Force Base, Tennessee. The 5.5 m-long Northrop Grumman ...
That Jane's link is bad but AvWeek had it too.