About five-ten years ago wasn't Rolls-Royce working on a turbojet for a high supersonic/low hypersonic missile which I think was designated the YJ-102 (I don't know if I'm remembering correctly)?
About five-ten years ago wasn't Rolls-Royce working on a turbojet for a high supersonic/low hypersonic missile which I think was designated the YJ-102 (I don't know if I'm remembering correctly)?
Yes, for RATTLRS. It apparently had about the best thrust to weight ratio ever achieved and was similar in concept to the SR-71 J58. Program ended with successful test flights; unclear if anything was ever developed from the technology.
That's the name I couldn't recall, thanks, I wonder if the test-flight results have been used since they were successful? If so I wouldn't be surprised if it was in a black programme.
A San Diego-based military contractor plans to spend $50 million to construct a 68,000-square-foot facility at Crane to test and improve hypersonic weapons.
The contractor, Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, announced the plans Tuesday at Westgate@Crane Technology Park in Odon, Indiana, about 35 miles southwest of Bloomington.
Company executives said they expect to hire more than 100 people, from machinists to engineers, who will earn an average of $80,000 a year.
Kratos Senior Vice President Michael Johns said the company is working on partnerships with academic institutions and already has signed research agreements with Notre Dame, Purdue and IU.
UK hypersonic research, which could see weapons travelling at several thousand miles per hour, has reached a landmark moment after successful completion of a major testing programme.
So that leaves what? HACM as the only potential air launched hypersonic missile with future anti-ship capability? Im okay with that as long as the USAF dosent also cancel it out of nowhere..
So that leaves what? HACM as the only potential air launched hypersonic missile with future anti-ship capability? Im okay with that as long as the USAF dosent also cancel it out of nowhere..
I hope so, cause relying on subsonic cruise missiles alone is absolutely not enough to make a dent against the PLAN. There should be a high speed AShM to complement what we have.
AARGM-ER is already being fielded. SiAW would probably drop in easily, since F-35 integration is already going to gap and it is presumed to share the basic structure/rocket motor of AGM-88G.
But I think the other thing we will see is an inexpensive cruise missile/effector, whether it is the MACE RFI or something similar. They will settle for something cheap and subsonic that they can buy in the thousands and carry en mass on F-18Es. There are a half dozen candidates or more that would probably fit the requirements.
I hope so, cause relying on subsonic cruise missiles alone is absolutely not enough to make a dent against the PLAN. There should be a high speed AShM to complement what we have.
Subsonic can work if there’s enough them and they can be carried in sufficient numbers. Something like Bullseye, Barracuda, or CMMT could be carried ten at a time and probably cost a tenth of LRaSM.
Subsonic can work if there’s enough them and they can be carried in sufficient numbers. Something like Bullseye, Barracuda, or CMMT could be carried ten at a time and probably cost a tenth of LRaSM.
More missiles means more launch platforms needed. I think an exquisite AShM missile, that'd render a significant chunk of the PLAN's air defense missiles moot against it, and force the PLA to develop and deploy an exquisite air defense missile is worth it.
More missiles means more launch platforms needed. I think an exquisite AShM missile, that'd render a significant chunk of the PLAN's air defense missiles moot against it, and force the PLA to develop and deploy an exquisite air defense missile is worth it.
Not if the missiles are smaller to begin with. Everything I listed is 500-1000# class, so a hornet likely could carry ten of them under its wings like mk83.
It is hard to imagine even a scramjet design makes PLAN defenses completely ineffective.
I think the USN wants a hypersonic capability but is having issues funding everything, and HALO was always going to be hard to develop compared to HACM. HAWC already proved out the HACM design profile; HALO was going to have to use something a lot more complicated to be carrier compatible (particularly in length). It’s regrettable but not all that surprising.
Navy said they are going to rely on LRASM for anti-ship after cancelling HALO with software and hardware improvements to targeting capability. No hypersonic for the Navy.
Navy said they are going to rely on LRASM for anti-ship after cancelling HALO with software and hardware improvements to targeting capability. No hypersonic for the Navy.
While I don't doubt the capability of the LRASM, isn't it a bit foolish of the USN to bet everything on one horse?
Imo, which is admittedly completely unqualified, perhaps a Hi/Lo mix with regards to Hyper/Supersonic AShMs and Subsonic AShMs would be the most solid option.
When I look towards countries like China and Russia, both having developed their anti ship munitions with the idea of engaging potent missile defenses in mind, I see a wide array of subsonic, supersonic and hypersonic missiles, including ballistic missiles.
So I wonder why the USN seems rather content with keeping a single air launched AShM relegated to said role.
While I don't doubt the capability of the LRASM, isn't it a bit foolish of the USN to bet everything on one horse?
Imo, which is admittedly completely unqualified, perhaps a Hi/Lo mix with regards to Hyper/Supersonic AShMs and Subsonic AShMs would be the most solid option.
When I look towards countries like China and Russia, both having developed their anti ship munitions with the idea of engaging potent missile defenses in mind, I see a wide array of subsonic, supersonic and hypersonic missiles, including ballistic missiles.
So I wonder why the USN seems rather content with keeping a single air launched AShM relegated to said role.
Yep and these threats force us to develop/deploy multiple different interceptors optimized for each of these threats. Hence developments like GPI and potentially PAC-3 on USN ships for ballistic/hypersonic missile defense. Meanwhile our adversaries just need something to deal with subsonic AShM's and call it a day..
Put a solid rocket motor on the back of an LRASM for a supersonic boost during terminal flight. That right there would be enough to greatly compensate adversarial air defense. You can't tell me that a faster missile isn't harder to intercept.
LRASM worked as a joint program because well it was based on the JASSM. For Increment 2, the AF had no interest in HALO because it could (and intends to) put moving target strike capability onto its hypersonic weapon (s). HACM will/should have that capability and US and Australia will adopt it. Navy's elevator driven sizing requirements really forced it into a tight spot in terms of needing a completely separate program which was expensive as it is but also without any risk sharing partner to help overcome challenges like this. Probably best for Navy to focus on building up LRASM stocks and fielding ACME and MACE to bring up volume. All three should be P-8 compatible as well..
DOD has done analysis and quite a lot of work on this in terms of effectiveness of high speed weapons against threats. This is why these efforts and programs existed in the first place. While having loads of cheaper significantly less survivable and effective subsonic missiles is a key investment area and much needed those alone won't get you where you need to be. The higher end stuff needs to exist in enough quantities as well. In fact it is the effectiveness of the middle (Harpoon and perhaps even JSM) that is questionable..
LRASM worked as a joint program because well it was based on the JASSM. For Increment 2, the AF had no interest in HALO because it could (and intends to) put moving target strike capability onto its hypersonic weapon (s). HACM will/should have that capability and US and Australia will adopt it. Navy's elevator driven sizing requirements really forced it into a tight spot in terms of needing a completely separate program which was expensive as it is but also without any risk sharing partner to help overcome challenges like this. Probably best for Navy to focus on building up LRASM stocks and fielding ACME and MACE to bring up volume. All three should be P-8 compatible as well..
DOD has done analysis and quite a lot of work on this in terms of effectiveness of high speed weapons against threats. This is why these efforts and programs existed in the first place. While having loads of cheaper significantly less survivable and effective subsonic missiles is a key investment area and much needed those alone won't get you where you need to be. The higher end stuff needs to exist in enough quantities as well. In fact it is the effectiveness of the middle (Harpoon and perhaps even JSM) that is questionable..
HALO was basically AL LRASM-B with a more updated (relevant to the late 2020's / 2030s) requirement from the Navy. It was a Navy only program because the Navy couldn't carry the AF's HACM and the AF, having HACM, did not need another high speed air breathing missile.
DOD has done analysis and quite a lot of work on this in terms of effectiveness of high speed weapons against threats. This is why these efforts and programs existed in the first place. While having loads of cheaper significantly less survivable and effective subsonic missiles is a key investment area and much needed those alone won't get you where you need to be. The higher end stuff needs to exist in enough quantities as well. In fact it is the effectiveness of the middle (Harpoon and perhaps even JSM) that is questionable..
I would argue that the U.S. in general and USN in particular lacks nearly enough standoff weapons to for a conflict with China. LRASM has been purchased in token numbers and harpoon lacks the range. While most any USN guided weapon can be used against a ship, most of them also have short ranges, low numbers, or both (JSOW, SLAM-ER, Maverick, AARGM, etc). And almost all of these weapons are in the million dollar price range. What is needed short term is a 300-500 mile range sea skimmer with enough precision and firepower to disable a combat system, low enough launch weight to be carried in numbers, and low enough cost to be stacked like firewood. The MACE RFI seemed to be moving in the right direction in the right timeframe, but it remains to be seen if the ISN actually gets its act together. There are however several weapons systems already developed with private funds that largely fit the requirements, so hopefully they can move fast on this.
HALO would have been nice to have as well, but the experience in Ukraine seems to indicate very high speed weapons are much less capable against modern defenses when the target and launch point are extremely close together - and in the case of a ship, they are colocated. And HALO was always go to be a mulch more complicated and expensive system that HACM. The size limit pretty much required an integrated booster in an annular combustion chamber with a ramjet, and to be truly hypersonic through most of it’s flight while achieving sufficient range (look at how short ranged HF3 is with much bigger dimensions) it was probably go to have to be a multimode ram/scramjet, like the cancelled HiFly. HACM and HAWC benefitted from having a simpler design that was already somewhat proven by the sole successful X-51 test.
My guess is development costs were steep and open ended, given the exquisite requirements, or alternatively that range had to take such a hit that the utility of the system was already being called into question. I agree that having a two tier approach to anti ship weapons would preferable, but it was always going to be a very expensive capability. USAF deployment of HACM, which will come much sooner than HALO ever possibly could, still forces the PLAN to devote resources to hypersonic defense even if the USN does not have one. Subsonic weapons do have great advantages in range, cost, and size…the latter a very serious consideration when you are limited to tactical platforms. The fact that pretty much the entire USN portfolio is subsonic does have the advantage of all of the weapons having similar/the same flight times and signature which potentially allows them to work together to overwhelm a target.
All valid points that none of what I wrote really disagrees with other than the fact that the need for high speed anti ship capability was a validated requirement as the Navy needed something better than LRASM in the early 2030s given where it saw the threat going. That is why HALO existed with validated requirements. Now, this is a capability gap the Navy would have to live with. It would have helped if the Navy had something better than the Block V TLAM but it doesn't look like it will. But saying that it was just a nice to have and not really all that great is also not a correct characterization. Luckily the AF has a program FOR NOW that perhaps fills the gap if pursued to its logical conclusion and not abandoned at first sight of technical challenges.
One thing I seeing people forgot bout the newer ASHMs like the TLAM V, LRASN, and NSM...
is that they are Stealth designs that fly extremely low.
Talking sub 100 foot here.
Unless you have AWACs types up, you are not even able to fucking see that till its 50 miles out.
Without stealth mind you, the radar Horizon max out at 50 60 miles for ships mask sets, for the big phase arrays like tge SPY1 that down to 30 40 since they are lower.
The Stealth likely makes it a out right PITA to detect up to 10 miles away. Inside that it slowly becames easier til its visible in the 5 miles band where ThermoOptics can detect and track it.
That cuts out most of the weapons can bring to bear and at the Tomahawks speed of 550 mph?
You got less then 30 seconds to kill it from a 5 mile detection, 1 minute from 10 and 2 for 20.
That isnt a whole lot of time even with computers.
Throw in numbers, which we do need far FAR more of...
Well 8 to 16 missiles popping up at at 10 miles is a scary deal.
Compare to hypersonic cruisers that need to be above 10k to work, and you can see that from well over 200 miles away via radar. Even at mach 5, or bout 1 mile a second that gives you well over 3 minutes to set up a shot kill it.
And unlike Low flyers that can get lost in the clutter and make identification a slower process.
You will be able to instantly ID a hypersonic for what it is. You can not hide that. At all.
That is very likely the DOD thought process on the whole hypersonic deal.
That does not help explain why HALO, OSuW Increment 2 and Screaming Arrow existed as programs, why the Air Force Secretary wanted moving target capability on hypersonic weapons, and why there were efforts to add similar capabilities to other high speed weapon programs in the DOD. Could it be that they actually modeled out threats and come up post 2030 requirements? I mean what you've mentioned isn't really novel or something that would be unknown to the Navy, Air Force or even the Army.
I have no doubt that the ISN wants a hypersonic weapon, were money not an object. My guess is that someone looked at the high technical risk of the project and probably a >$1 billion development effort, before production even began, and just said “how many barracuda 500s can we get for a billion?”…and the answer was several thousand, and that was that.
I have no doubt that the ISN wants a hypersonic weapon, were money not an object. My guess is that someone looked at the high technical risk of the project and probably a >$1 billion development effort, before production even began, and just said “how many barracuda 500s can we get for a billion?”…and the answer was several thousand, and that was that.
Very interesting. Should result in the cancellation of LRASM as well since you can buy several Baracuda 500s for each LRASM. At least cancel future LRASM and JASSM increments beyond what’s already there. Same for HACM, LRSO and other such weapons. NSM and JSM with their multi million dollar price tags look dead too.
Very interesting. Should result in the cancellation of LRASM as well since you can buy several Baracuda 500s for each LRASM. At least cancel future LRASM and JASSM increments beyond what’s already there. Same for HACM, LRSO and other such weapons. NSM and JSM with their multi million dollar price tags look dead too.
Your sarcasm aside, the big difference there is that those are developed items in production where as the magic of hypersonic flight in a 15’ package has yet to be demonstrated, and it would be very pricey. You can also buy several hundred LRASMs for a billion, which would almost double USN inventory. The USN cannot use HACM and has no JSM purchases, and the NSM purchases are surface launched, so you hyperbole is noted but not especially effective for your argument.
One thing I seeing people forgot bout the newer ASHMs like the TLAM V, LRASN, and NSM...
is that they are Stealth designs that fly extremely low.
Talking sub 100 foot here.
Unless you have AWACs types up, you are not even able to fucking see that till its 50 miles out.
Without stealth mind you, the radar Horizon max out at 50 60 miles for ships mask sets, for the big phase arrays like tge SPY1 that down to 30 40 since they are lower.
The Stealth likely makes it a out right PITA to detect up to 10 miles away. Inside that it slowly becames easier til its visible in the 5 miles band where ThermoOptics can detect and track it.
That cuts out most of the weapons can bring to bear and at the Tomahawks speed of 550 mph?
You got less then 30 seconds to kill it from a 5 mile detection, 1 minute from 10 and 2 for 20.
I don’t think only new missile can fly at low altitude, Harpoon was able to fly at altitude 1.5-6 meters above sea surface, Exocet were able to fly just 1 meter above the sea. Even supersonic cruise missile such as KH-31 can fly as low as 5 meters above sea surface.
Consider a top-tier Chinese destroyer like the Type 055, which is equipped with four Type 346 S/C-band fire control radars. These radars are mounted with their base approximately 15 meters above sea level and their top around 19 meters.
This elevation gives the radar a horizon of about 19.9–22.1 km for detecting sea-skimming missiles flying at just 1 meter above the surface. At Mach 0.95, subsonic missiles like the LRASM, JSM, or Harpoon would take roughly 65–72 seconds to cover this distance.
For slightly higher-flying threats—say, supersonic missiles like the Kh-31, BrahMos, or ASM-3 cruising at 5 meters altitude—the radar horizon extends to around 25.2–27.2 km. At Mach 2.5, these missiles would reach the ship in just 29.4–31 seconds.
This highlights a key point: even without AWACS or air asset you generally have more time to react to subsonic missiles than to supersonic ones. With AWACS or airborne assets extending your detection range, defending against subsonic threats becomes significantly easier.
While it’s true that subsonic anti-ship missiles are usually smaller and can be carried in greater numbers, in practice, each aircraft pylon typically carries only one missile—regardless of speed class. This means a mixed loadout of both subsonic and supersonic missiles is not only possible but potentially optimal.
That's a significant amount of time. Active Protection Systems on tanks are capable of intercepting RPGs and, in some cases, even sabot rounds—despite having only fractions of a second to respond. In my view, the primary challenge in intercepting supersonic or even hypersonic threats isn't necessarily the reaction time. Rather, it's the reduced effectiveness of traditional warheads at such high closure rates.When targets are traveling at speeds of Mach 5 to 8, fragmentation warheads struggle to effectively engage them, as the extreme relative velocity means the fragments often cannot reach the target in time , the two simply pass each other before the fragments can impart significant energy or damage.
Another critical issue is the lead angle: at these extreme speeds, the intercept point is significantly offset from the target’s current position. This means even minor course adjustments by the hypersonic target can force major corrections by the interceptor, making a successful engagement far more complex
but the experience in Ukraine seems to indicate very high speed weapons are much less capable against modern defenses when the target and launch point are extremely close together - and in the case of a ship, they are colocated.
I would disagree with this, if anything, the experience in Ukraine shown us that supersonic weapons are much more dangerous to air defense. From Russia side, the majority of their S-400, S-300V4 lost were due to ATACMS, a Mach 3 missiles, and not due to something like Stormshadow, a stealth missile.
From Ukraine side, they also published the interception range against different kind of missile, the success rate agaisnt subsonic cruise missile were significantly higher than the success rate against supersonic ballistic missiles
I would disagree with this, if anything, the experience in Ukraine shown us that supersonic weapons are much more dangerous to air defense. From Russia side, the majority of their S-400, S-300V4 lost were due to ATACMS, a Mach 3 missiles, and not due to something like Stormshadow, a stealth missile.
From Ukraine side, they also published the interception range against different kind of missile, the success rate agaisnt subsonic cruise missile were significantly higher than the success rate against supersonic ballistic missiles View attachment 766440
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
www.twz.com
, I wonder if the test-flight results have been used since they were successful? If so I wouldn't be surprised if it was in a black programme.
www.atlanticcouncil.org
www.defensenews.com
aviationweek.com
www.navalnews.com
www.intellinews.com
