One of reasons we only see small load outs of air to surface weapons is because that is all that is possible: even Harpoon is heavy enough that F-18E/F is limited to four. The USN needs a sub 1000# weapon to unlock larger load outs. We definitely have seen aircraft loaded with 11 mk83s before, so these kind of load outs are possible. But not with current stand off weapons.
Current US hypersonic weapons projects. (General)
- Thread starter Hanse
- Start date
One of reasons we only see small load outs of air to surface weapons is because that is all that is possible: even Harpoon is heavy enough that F-18E/F is limited to four. The USN needs a sub 1000# weapon to unlock larger load outs. We definitely have seen aircraft loaded with 11 mk83s before, so these kind of load outs are possible. But not with current stand off weapons.
Forest Green
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 11 June 2019
- Messages
- 9,362
- Reaction score
- 17,032
intellinews aka someone's backside.Here you go
Ukraine discloses for the first time real missile interception rates against the various kinds of Russian missiles
For the first time, Ukraine’s armed forces has disclosed the real missile interception rates, moving beyond its standard claim of 'all ...www.intellinews.com
Number was from commander in Chief Syrskyi, other magazine just report itintellinews aka someone's backside.
bring_it_on
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 4 July 2013
- Messages
- 3,636
- Reaction score
- 3,730
LRASM is still a program that consumed more $3+ Million per AUR. Imagine how many $150,000 - $450,000 Barracuda line or similar products you can buy for the annual LRASM budget. Also, zero out the LRASM/JASSM RDT&E budget and move that to Barracuda and that will result in even more missiles.
There is nothing unique about the NSM that makes other subsonic cruise missiles incapable of being surface launched. It is still a multi million dollar missile. A surface launched MACE would be quite a bit cheaper affording a much larger inventory. Your argument, if valid, needs to work both ways. It can't just be used to justify walking away from 'fast' weapons when in fact we pay millions of dollars per round for 'slow' weapons. There's opportunity cost to consider.
That was my point: cheap subsonics with low launch weight exist at low costs now. HALO is purely theoretical, and for its development costs, you could buy thousands of subsonic weapons off the shelf, assuming HALO development was even successful. And there is little precedent for hypersonic capabilities in that package.
bring_it_on
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 4 July 2013
- Messages
- 3,636
- Reaction score
- 3,730
I agree. Which is why I mentioned the we should urgently be diverting funding from expensive subsonic missiles to cheap subsonic missiles because of exactly the reasons you’ve outlined. Time to stop wasting money on LRASM, JSM, TLAM etc.
My point is that there is a reason for why we buy more capable and exquisite weapons. Networked JASSMER at $1.5- $2 MM a pop is still going to be desirable vs Barracuda or alternative at $150,000-$200,000 a pop. Even though you can buy 10 of the latter for each JASSM. Doesn't mean we should not be buying cheap cruise missiles but just that the actual end user sees a value in exquisite capability. The same applies to hypersonic weapons. The end user also has some pretty sophisticated ways that it can model weapon effectiveness, cost per effect and adversary air and missile defenses. These weapon programs were not born in a vacuum. Something must have prompted the Navy to consider a future increment of its offensive surface attack weapon for the early 2030s even though it had the 'interim' capability in production. And clearly it didn't approach that analysis with the "my current baseline is too capable and expensive, and thus I should develop something less capable and cheaper".
An inventory of hundreds of hypersonic anti-ship weapons paired with thousands of subsonic anti ship weapons is going to be a lot more effective than an inventory of thousands of subsonic anti ship weapons alone..even if the latter is cheaper. Clearly, the Navy walked away from HALO because it couldn't manage the risk and it has competing priorities. But let's not leap to the conclusion that it was simply not worth it and the moment someone showed them the Barracuda 500 they decided to walk away in favor of a $150,000 per AUR promise and snazzy digital marketing. Programs like MACE, ACME, ERAM etc. existed and/were in the works in parallel to those looking to develop more exquisite capabilities. Whether that was more capable and expensive variants of existing subsonic weapons (JASSM-ER + , LRASM, BLock V TLAM, JSM etc) or supersonic (AARGM-ER, SiAW and future SoAW) and hypersonic (ARRW, HACM, HALO, LRHW etc) efforts.
Last edited:
I do not disagree in principle, but if anything was going to be cut, it is the hypothetical hypersonic, not the cheap cruise missiles everyone is offering. HALO is purely hypothetical; making a hypersonic in that size class has never been done by anyone.
bring_it_on
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 4 July 2013
- Messages
- 3,636
- Reaction score
- 3,730
It probably could have but the Navy probably also did not have a strict hypersonic requirement. But broadly I agree. The bomber and F-15EX (or land based FA-18) delivered hypersonic HACM would be a good capability to field. As well as integrating a seeker on LRHW. If indeed those investments are preserved then I think the Navy will do fine with LRASM inventories. But I'm highly skeptical of the "its really not that effective" argument that pops up after there is a setback instead of doing what we've historically done..gotten back to testing and fixing what goes wrong and fielding weapon systems. IF we hadn't followed that we wouldn't have had the JASSM to build the LRASM out of.
EmoBirb
Certified Meanie
- Joined
- 18 January 2025
- Messages
- 73
- Reaction score
- 101
There are supersonic sea skimming AShMs, why shouldn't hypersonic AShMs have a similar capability? The high altitude during the terminal phase should only really be an issue with boost glide vehicles and ballistic missiles. But something moving at, excuse my language here, Mach-Fuck barely above the sea level seems incredibly scary and difficult to deal with. And that's generally what most aim towards with their hypersonic "ship-killers".
Are there any US hypersonic air to air missiles in development? Could they be the AIM-174b and/or AIM-260? The Chinese allegedly tested one with a 600 plus mile range, designed to counter B-21. Are the Russians working on any?
Last edited:
I recall reading somewhere years ago (It was before the Phoenix was retired) that the AIM-54C had a burnout speed of Mach 5.5.
IMHO, the AIM-260 will be hypersonic. But have any of you heard any rumblings that would confirm or deny this?
Indeed. It stands to reason that US air to air rocket motor technology has, since then, produced engines that are a lot more powerful and smaller.
I agree. It employed somewhat of a high altitude (maybe around 100k feet) flight profile, where it would burn out and glide, using the lift generated by its relatively big strakes. Essentially, it lofted for the majority of its time in flight. The same would probably be true for aim-260, but it does not really have any strakes. Thus, the motor is probably more powerful, while also being smaller. AIM-260 would also probably be able to reignite its motor, for improved terminal manuevering.
Last edited:
Navy Axes Its Hypersonic Anti-Ship Cruise Missile Plans
The Navy has said for years that the HALO program is essential, but now it is reevaluating its plans based on cost concerns.
www.twz.com
I was not arguing that hypersonics were ineffective, but someone else here was suggesting they would be invulnerable.
I think it would definitely have uses, but it would have a high cost of development in both money and time, and a high cost of purchase. A 500 mile subsonic is something you can buy off the shelf now I think that’s why HALO died.
bring_it_on
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 4 July 2013
- Messages
- 3,636
- Reaction score
- 3,730
You could have bought a 500 mile subsonic even before HALO was chosen as the increment 2 solutions following completion of a formal AoA for the program. In fact, the increment 1 it was to essentially replace (in Navy procurement budgets) was a subsonic weapon. Most articles that talk about HALO cancelation refer to technical challenges and cost. Not the fact that the Navy finally found that that 500 nmi subsonic missiles are a thing.
But the costs have collapsed since LRASM was created. And LRASM was never well optimized for the anti shipping mission.
bring_it_on
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 4 July 2013
- Messages
- 3,636
- Reaction score
- 3,730
Could be. Hoping they collapse further and we cancel LRASM and JASSM all together. We need Arsenal 1, 2 and 3 churning out a few million of those bad boys a year.
Hypersonic as in sustained. Apparently the Chinese tested one.
Maybe your right. But AIM-174 probably cannot be carried internally on FA-XX. Thus, it is not very stealthy. Let us propose that it has a 350 mile range when launched from an aircraft. By the time it would reach a target about that distance out, provided that the enemy plane was headed towards the other at supersonic speeds, the launch aircraft would probably be in range of an internally carried air-to-air missile that would be similar to AIM-260 (perhaps PL-17). Assuming that the above is true, would it not be more logical to then only go with the AIM-260?
CJohnston
Faking it till you make it isn't so bad after all
For anyone interested, here is the raw statement from a U.S. Navy spokesperson familiar with the matter. This was the same statement cited in my story.
I originally found out about a possible hold on the HALO missile from a statement made by a senior Northrop Grumman executive to me in an interview at Sea Air Space 2025. They said NGC developed a propulsion system in under 12 months for HALO which was "now on hold". A follow-up with NAVAIR yielded this.
Working on figuring out what the Navy's new approach is for 'affordability' in OASuW Increment 2. I'll update here if I find anything.
I originally found out about a possible hold on the HALO missile from a statement made by a senior Northrop Grumman executive to me in an interview at Sea Air Space 2025. They said NGC developed a propulsion system in under 12 months for HALO which was "now on hold". A follow-up with NAVAIR yielded this.
Working on figuring out what the Navy's new approach is for 'affordability' in OASuW Increment 2. I'll update here if I find anything.
Forest Green
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 11 June 2019
- Messages
- 9,362
- Reaction score
- 17,032
Those stats are just weird and probably affected greatly by where the actual targets were relative to air defences, e.g. the shootdown rate for Kinzhal (25%) is higher than Iskanders and KN-23s (4.5%). And the shootdown rate for Zircons - the unstoppable Mach 10 missile - is higher still (33%) and yet the intercept rate on the dog-turd-supermarket-killing Kh-22/32 (Mach 3.5) is only 0.55%. I'm discounting S-300/400s because it's unclear whether they were missed or missed themselves given performance.Number was from commander in Chief Syrskyi, other magazine just report it
Based on that it seems like the Zircon and Kinzhal were a waste of time, or is it just that a greater % were fired at Kyiv, which is relatively well guarded? Note also that Ukraine ran out of interceptors at one point too.
Army will soon deploy containerized, long-range missile test capabilities to ships | InsideDefense.com
HUNTSVILLE, AL -- Inside the Army's Redstone Test Center at Redstone Arsenal here, the service is testing out a series of containers that will be able to collect long-range missile test data including telemetry, flight safety, satellite communications and weather data.
Last edited:
Due to their status, these hypersonic missile likely get engaged by much greater quantity of interceptors as opposed to common supersonic missileThose stats are just weird and probably affected greatly by where the actual targets were relative to air defences, e.g. the shootdown rate for Kinzhal (25%) is higher than Iskanders and KN-23s (4.5%). And the shootdown rate for Zircons - the unstoppable Mach 10 missile - is higher still (33%) and yet the intercept rate on the dog-turd-supermarket-killing Kh-22/32 (Mach 3.5) is only 0.55%. I'm discounting S-300/400s because it's unclear whether they were missed or missed themselves given performance.
Based on that it seems like the Zircon and Kinzhal were a waste of time, or is it just that a greater % were fired at Kyiv, which is relatively well guarded? Note also that Ukraine ran out of interceptors at one point too.
Army will soon deploy containerized, long-range missile test capabilities to ships | InsideDefense.com
HUNTSVILLE, AL -- Inside the Army's Redstone Test Center at Redstone Arsenal here, the service is testing out a series of containers that will be able to collect long-range missile test data including telemetry, flight safety, satellite communications and weather data.insidedefense.com
Those stats are just weird and probably affected greatly by where the actual targets were relative to air defences, e.g. the shootdown rate for Kinzhal (25%) is higher than Iskanders and KN-23s (4.5%). And the shootdown rate for Zircons - the unstoppable Mach 10 missile - is higher still (33%) and yet the intercept rate on the dog-turd-supermarket-killing Kh-22/32 (Mach 3.5) is only 0.55%. I'm discounting S-300/400s because it's unclear whether they were missed or missed themselves given performance.
Based on that it seems like the Zircon and Kinzhal were a waste of time, or is it just that a greater % were fired at Kyiv, which is relatively well guarded? Note also that Ukraine ran out of interceptors at one point too.
Army will soon deploy containerized, long-range missile test capabilities to ships | InsideDefense.com
HUNTSVILLE, AL -- Inside the Army's Redstone Test Center at Redstone Arsenal here, the service is testing out a series of containers that will be able to collect long-range missile test data including telemetry, flight safety, satellite communications and weather data.
Going from memory, the Kinzhal incidents were usually directed at Kiev. But more broadly yes, what was fired where will make a huge difference - Patriot has a decent chance against very high speed targets if they are fired directly towards the battery at some next to it or behind it. So a complete analysis of effectiveness of various offensive missile types would require a knowledge of the entire Ukrainian air defense network at the time of engagement to really get an apples to apples comparison.
Thanks for heads up. Wasn’t NG eliminated from HALO in the first downselect though? I thought RTX won it.
bring_it_on
I really should change my personal text
- Joined
- 4 July 2013
- Messages
- 3,636
- Reaction score
- 3,730
The Navy has an effort looking at low cost high speed weapons. They recently published a solicitation asking industry for it. But as some here have opined, the Navy now having apparently realized that there are subsonic missiles out there, may walk back those requirements as well.
Last edited:
Air resistance slows everything down at sea level. Mach 2.5 is the fastest figure I’ve seen for a sea skimmer. I doubt Brahmos or Zircon are much faster at low altitude; hypersonic speeds are pretty much by definition high altitude for air breathers. Even ICBM RVs massively slow down in the thick air of the lower atmosphere. I suspect every hypersonic glider slows down to supersonic speeds on its dive to the target.
Forest Green
ACCESS: Above Top Secret
- Joined
- 11 June 2019
- Messages
- 9,362
- Reaction score
- 17,032
I think it's more to do with the fact that Zircons have been used pretty much exclusively on Kyiv. The quote also makes no sense as regards 32 launchers per battery, last I checked it was 6-8, unless it means 32 missiles, but that would suggest they're using PAC-2s, rather than more suitable PAC-3s (8x16 - old non-MSE PAC-3s note).
What was the source?
There's nothing to suggest Zircon even has a low altitude capability, unless we're talking about just before impact. Can it even operate in ramjet rather than scramjet mode?
Which is why a better analysis would focus solely on Kyiv, since we know there is definitely a Patriot network deployed there... somewhere. Other places may well only be defended by fresh air. The stats should also subtract failures of the offensive missile, since if a Kh-22 or Kh-47 crashes in a field it's not really within the Patriot's remit to intercept it, nor is it necessary.
Last edited:
CJohnston
Faking it till you make it isn't so bad after all
Yes they were. They also mentioned having developed a highly loaded grain motor for someone's HALO bid... which makes me think there's a lot more at play here than just a missile in the OASuW Increment 2 program.
Orbital ATK might have been subcontracted. I think NG is part of the RTX submission for HACM as well.
Is it conceivable that a hypersonic would only go down to sea-skimming mode when it was only 50 or so miles from the target?
Also, hypersonics may be detected, but the enemy might not have enough time to act on them, at least reliably. Perhaps hypersonics could be used somewhat as decoys, while cruise missiles would do most of the actual attack,
What do they mean by a "Highly loaded grain"?
Similar threads
-
Lockheed Martin AGM-183 Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW)- Started by Moose
- Replies: 667
-
-
China DF-17 hypersonic boost-glide missile carrier
- Started by antigravite
- Replies: 41
-
-
