Current US hypersonic weapons projects. (General)

Document Likely Shows SM-6 Hypersonic Speed, Anti-Surface Role | Aviation Week Network

The terse reference in a written submission by Navy officials to the House Armed Services Committee on March 11 also likely offers the first proof that the SM-6 Block 1B remains in development.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com
Also, written testimony submitted by James Guerts, assistant Navy secretary for acquisition, offers the first confirmation of the service’s third hypersonic-weapon development program, joining the anti-air Hypervelocity Projectile in development by the Strategic Capabilities Office and the intermediate-range Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) program.
Click to expand...
Under a single paragraph headlined as “Hypersonics” in Guerts’ testimony, he describes the HVP and CPS—a 34.5-in.-dia., two-stage booster stack topped by a hypersonic glide vehicle—and a third, unnamed and previously undisclosed hypersonic program.
Click to expand...
 
Forest Green said:
I don't know if that's true but it's a heavier missile and you'd be able to use a 3m (10ft) long 21" booster to get the vehicle to altitude and speed from a ship. The X-51 engine may also have had a very limiting operating envelope with it being a prototype. I don't know how flexible the HACM engine will be but the minimum speed for a scramjet is around M4.0, which seems achievable.
Click to expand...
It is true, I worked on the X-51 launch profile from the 419th side of the house. After one of our missions (that I happened to be on, BTW), we took Balls 50 up into the 40's to see how she'd do up there, above FL450 with as much fuel we had on board the answer was not well (plus it was no fun pressure breathing O2). Those missions were planned with min fuel, two dry passes, a wet run, then RTB with a fuel emergency more or less. Now the new RR engines and clean nose may allow the J to get up there. That said, the requirements for any operational weapon would be high 20's to low 40's.
 
There was a document floating around that indicated a 90” booster at 20” diameter. I am guessing that is what you need to push the cruiser into envelope sans 49,000 feet trip.

Perhaps something the reverse of an AAM dual grain? Slower burn to align and get to altitude; hard thrust to Mach 4-5 once you get there?
 
HTB 2 was launched from Wallops on 13 January using a Terrier-Terrier-Oriole sounding rocket.


MDA Conducts Second Hypersonic Test Bed Flight Experiment
25-NEWS-0001
January 14, 2024

WALLOPS ISLAND, Virginia – Yesterday the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) conducted a flight test of the Hypersonic Test Bed (HTB), a glide vehicle designed to provide a common platform for hypersonic experiments.

During the test, designated HTB-2, a sounding rocket propelled the glide vehicle into hypersonic flight prior to separation.

“HTB-2 demonstrates our ability to affordably replicate hypersonic capabilities to enable testing of future hypersonic defense capabilities,” said Lt. Gen. Heath Collins, MDA Director.

MDA teamed with other Department of Defense organizations, industry, and academia to execute HTB-2.

“The data gained from this flight test will enable further pursuit of state-of-the-art hypersonic technologies that can operate reliably in dynamic flight environments...a must-have as we develop hypersonic missile defense capabilities,” said Collins.

MDA is working to share data informing the development of enhanced capabilities for a layered hypersonic defense to support warfighter needs and outpace the adversary threat.
[/quote]
 
How are the hypersonic testbed sounding rockets doing in Australia (Is Woomera still being used as a launch-site?)?
 
I find it odd that only in 2026 the Army Task Force will start testing of the Dark Eagle to assess its ability to dis-integrate complex defense systems in the opening salvos of a major fight/war and presumably the hundreds if not thousands needed to make a meaningful impact on China which is the third largest country in the world, doubt if there is the production capacity required to meet the missile numbers required at near $50 million each, would have assumed they would carried out the necessary studies before spending approx. $8+billions on joint development of the Dark Eagle and Navy CPS hypersonic missile.

One thing Ukraine has highlighted is the high numbers of munitions required and the lack of manufacturing capacity to meet the demand

Army's TF STRIKE to test LRHW and MRC's ability to dis-integrate adversary defenses | InsideDefense.com

The Army is looking to begin as soon as 2026 to start coordinated testing of its newest deep strike systems to assess the ability of the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon and the Mid-Range Capability to dis-integrate complex defense systems in the opening salvos of a major fight against an adversary...
insidedefense.com insidedefense.com
 
Cordy said:
I find it odd that only in 2026 the Army Task Force will start testing of the Dark Eagle..`
Click to expand...
We have been wargaming the use of hypersonic weapons (all three services) across a range of scenarios and plans for the last several years. All services have been involved in that assessment, and that was, in part, used as a justification to actually go out and begin fielding systems. Various very senior DOD officials have referenced to that over the years. Just because they are moving to a newer testing phase in a post-fielding effort, doesn't automatically mean that this is the first time we've thought or gamed out whether these things are useful or not.

There is no single weapon system solution to a prolonged conflict. We need both exquisite / high-end capability, like hypersonic missiles, and low end affordable capability in order to present the sort of challenges that might deter a potential conflict. China is essentially doing the exact same with the one key difference in that it has already invested treasure in fielding the sort of exquisite long range fires capability across a range of cost/performance spectrum (Short to Intermediate ranged weapons).

We should have invested more in the lower end stuff over the last few years instead of the PR stunt which was 'Replcator' but there now seems to be money flowing to several efforts that will basically get us that 'affordable mass' capability as long as we stick to those investments.
 
bring_it_on said:
We have been wargaming the use of hypersonic weapons (all three services) across a range of scenarios and plans for the last several years. All services have been involved in that assessment, and that was, in part, used as a justification to actually go out and begin fielding systems. Various very senior DOD officials have referenced to that over the years. Just because they are moving to a newer testing phase in a post-fielding effort, doesn't automatically mean that this is the first time we've thought or gamed out whether these things are useful or not.

There is no single weapon system solution to a prolonged conflict. We need both exquisite / high-end capability, like hypersonic missiles, and low end affordable capability in order to present the sort of challenges that might deter a potential conflict. China is essentially doing the exact same with the one key difference in that it has already invested treasure in fielding the sort of exquisite long range fires capability across a range of cost/performance spectrum (Short to Intermediate ranged weapons).

We should have invested more in the lower end stuff over the last few years instead of the PR stunt which was 'Replcator' but there now seems to be money flowing to several efforts that will basically get us that 'affordable mass' capability as long as we stick to those investments.
Click to expand...
What criteria did the Services use in the hypersonic wargaming assessments, we don't know, it's easy to bias the results to make sure you get the conclusions you want, did they include Mark Maybury's 2013 paper assessment which would have saved $billions in development and production costs of the Dark Eagle/CPS missiles with lower Mach number missiles, I very much doubt it.

Bill Sweetman wrote :-
How important is it to exceed Mach 5, compared with speeds of Mach 3.5 to 4 that can be attained with less risky ramjets? Weapon time of flight is less, but only by six to eight minutes for 1800 km range. A 2013 paper by Mark Maybury, then chief scientist of the U.S. Air Force, shows that with modest stealth measures, a high-supersonic vehicle is as survivable as a hypersonic one. Moreover, the combination of high Mach and reduced radar cross section was demonstrated more than 60 years ago.
 
Cordy said:
What criteria did the Services use in the hypersonic wargaming assessments...
Click to expand...
When you find out, let us all know so we can review. My post was simply pointing out the basic fact that claiming that this is the first attempt to ascertain utility of hypersonic weapons as you had implied was wrong.
Cordy said:
Bill Sweetman wrote
Click to expand...
Great. Add those to the mix.

Cordy said:
Mark Maybury's 2013 paper assessment which would have saved $billions in development and production costs of the Dark Eagle/CPS missiles with lower Mach number missiles, I very much doubt it.
Click to expand...
Dark Eagle is a land / sea launched intermediate range system. How do you get that sort of range, time-of-flight and survivability from an air breathing IR system? It would end up being very big and very very fast for a scramjet to obtain similar time of flight. Its basically attempting to do with ramjet/scramjet that hasn't really been done before at those ranges.

The low-cost alternate to Dark Eagle would be a conventional IRBM where you are essentially trading survivability for lower cost. Some of that will be regained by needing more missiles per potential aimpoint etc but overall still probably would be a favorable mix from a cost equation standpoint. China has both. North Korea and Iran are fielding both as well. I think we need to look at low cost IRBM alternates that come out of LRHW launchers. And perhaps even Navy subs. It would make those batteries a lot more effective and allow to hold other targets at risk as well.

And your comparison significantly undervalues the ToF variance between something like a Dark Eagle, and a Mach 4 cruiser over at a similar max range. Its going to be quite a substantial increase in ToF..
 
Last edited:
It does seem to me that air launched ramjets with integral rocket boosters are low hanging fruit to be picked. Though for a ground launched IRBM, boost glide makes more. Any ramjet cruiser would have to be pretty massive to carry fuel for those ranges, and require a massive booster on top. SM-6 IB is more pseudo hypersonic; it’s just a SAM/aeroballistic missile that happens to exceed Mach 5 for a fairly short amount of its flight. For the USAF it looks like HACM will fill this space already: much less expensive with much lower peak speed.

The USN was reportedly agnostic as to what propulsion method was adopted for HALO. It is possible we might see a ramjet for that program (the image reported to be the losing NG bid looked like a pure ramjet). A direct boost to scramjet velocities is probably unworkable with USN weight and length limitations; I would think HALO minimally to be dual mode.
 
Josh_TN said:
For the USAF it looks like HACM will fill this space already: much less expensive with much lower peak speed.
Click to expand...

That's right and not needing to build up very high Mach speeds that impacts cost quite a bit. The AF is placing a big bet on HACM and it may end up being the first true high-speed hypersonic weapon (High Mach cruise speed and not aeroballistic) that is affordable enough to field in quantities. But air-breathing scramjets have a higher test burden so that'll have to happen over the next several years (happening with MoHAWC now). They are getting ready to fund a production capacity increase for HACM so seem to have high confidence based on HAWC and MoHAWC demonstrated performance by the contractor and flight tests..
 
Last edited:
USAF seems very intent on maximizing production right from the beginning; there are already a couple of related contracts just to expand infrastructure for production capacity. There really is no reason HACM would be that expensive; the engine is 3D printed and the use of very high temperature resistant materials is limited to leading edges. I bet it will be competitive with things like LRASM and SM-6.
 
Yes, agree that it is very promising. But a long road between where MoHAWC is at the moment > and HACM flight testing commencement (expected this year) and routine tests of HACM coming off of F-15EX etc.
 
No doubt, but I think there is every chance that it will catapult the U.S. into the front of air breathing hypersonics when it makes its appearance. The PRC seems rather behind in scramjets (although always hard/impossible to assess given their opacity) and Zircon seems to be a higher priced/harder to produce item based on its limited usage. There also are indications in Ukrainian usage that it is not as fast and sophisticated as was originally believed.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom