Lockheed Martin AGM-183 Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW)

[bring_it_on]

https://www.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/2021SAF/04_Apr/FY19_FY20_Dept_of_the_Air_Force_Acquisition_Biennial_Report_final.pdf

 

[sferrin]

Yes, but this is nothing new. You have to rush if you want to have a new thing done on a tighter-than-normal schedule. I'm sure the Apollo guys felt the same pressure.

OTOH people here are saying that two test flights, a decade apart from each other, with fin failures on launch are somehow related is a bit reaching.

Who said that?

The very fact that the test flights are proceeding is inherently good, because it means that faults will be ironed out.

Like they were on HyFly, X-51, and RATTLRS?

 

[Kat Tsun]

X-51 and AGM-183's fin-related problems were dropped in the same post by someone, as if they were related or something, and not separated by about a decade.

Anyway yes, all those tech demonstrator programs were successful and delivered what they promised. The fact that they were handled primarily by NASA and DARPA should tell you immediately what the intent was. Or did you think the USAF was interested in making a super slow Mach 3 engine into a cruise missile when it had been spending the last 15 years looking into Mach 6+ scramjets and boost-glide weapons?

I'd imagine X-51 in particular has probably proven quite good at informing the HAWC development group, and maybe in 10 years the USAF will have an operational air-breathing hypersonic missile, but that's probably a tad optimistic. For now, AGM-183 will have to suffice.

Either way, there are plenty of open questions about whether dual combustion ramjets (HyFly), or proper scramjets (X-51), or other more exotic forms of propulsion like rotating detonation engines, are the way forward for air-breathing hypersonic weapons. Which is partly why DARPA funds so many programs simultaneously: it's looking a lot of cutting edge technology at the same time.

That said, RATTLRS appears to have been a total jobs program TBH. I honestly don't know what a Mach 3 missile would achieve these days. OTOH maybe they were looking at a potentially cheaper engine for a supersonic maneuvering target drone. RATTLRS' YJ-102 would potentially be a good powerplant for something simulating supersonic missiles like Brahmos or Granit. But that's just going back to YJ-102's roots in the Navy's SLAT.

 

[tequilashooter]

If anything I am looking forward to new VLS for ships or to use existing VLS to use scramjets. Eventually other superpowers will have decent ABM capabilities for their ships. I am still shocked air launched hypersonic projects seem to be more of a priority than having hypersonic missile projects for the U.S. Navy.

 

[Kat Tsun]

The Navy has plenty of airplanes, and will soon have the same airplanes as the Air Force. I don't see why it makes sense to make a missile just for boats when the USAF, USMC, and USN are all using basically the same aircraft as far as weapons are concerned. Everyone benefits equally from a missile that can be carried by F-35.

 

[tequilashooter]

The Navy has plenty of airplanes, and will soon have the same airplanes as the Air Force. I don't see why it makes sense to make a missile just for boats when the USAF, USMC, and USN are all using basically the same aircraft as far as weapons are concerned. Everyone benefits equally from a missile that can be carried by F-35.

So those missiles will be carried externally? So everything is going to be Carrier Strike Group related?

 

[sferrin]

X-51 and AGM-183's fin-related problems were dropped in the same post by someone, as if they were related or something, and not separated by about a decade.

Anyway yes, all those tech demonstrator programs were successful and delivered what they promised.

LOL. Okay, do you have any actual evidence of that? The BEST X-51 did was fly at Mach 5.1 (after being boosted to Mach 4.9 by the ATACMS booster). It did not reach Mach 6 as intended. It barely accelerated under scramjet power. It never did fly under power for the full 5 minutes as I recall. And that, the most "successful" flight, almost didn't happen. The people in charge were literally almost too scared to try. "What if we fail?" Well, you can't fail if you don't try I suppose.

HyFly was an abject failure.

RATTLRS went nowhere. (No, it wasn't suppose to be a "jobs program". It was supposed to be a Mach 3 cruise missile.) If you can't think of a use for that just look around. It's obvious.

 

[NMaude]

In regards to the X-51A and the problems it had the USAF should listened to Boeing's advice to produce 10 of the test-vehicles not just the four that were produced.

 

[Kat Tsun]

The Navy has plenty of airplanes, and will soon have the same airplanes as the Air Force. I don't see why it makes sense to make a missile just for boats when the USAF, USMC, and USN are all using basically the same aircraft as far as weapons are concerned. Everyone benefits equally from a missile that can be carried by F-35.

So those missiles will be carried externally? So everything is going to be Carrier Strike Group related?

A VLS missile would need to fit within Mark 41's dimensions, which are pretty constrained for any sort of high performance supersonic missile.

So far the USN doesn't really have much of a better option than Tomahawk and possibly LRASM for higher end threats, but Tomahawk seems perfectly adequate for knocking out S-400s or whatever. Something like AGM-183 would too big to fit in current VLS and require making larger ones, or using some sort of external box, both of which have their own limitations. Bear in mind this is for a platform that goes slightly slower than an LA mid-week morning traffic, at best. So you've mostly negated the benefits of the hypersonic weapon.

Something like F-18E/F or F-35 is probably going to have to carry a hypersonic missile externally, yes. "Everything being Carrier Strike Group related" more or less summarizes the past 40 or so years of US Navy thinking about strike: it's an extension of the CVBG and its escorts. The escorts aren't lacking for strike at all nowadays, nor will they in the future, since Tomahawk is going to get the new Block V upgrade soon. I have no idea what ripping out Tomahawk cells and replacing them with ARRW cells will do, but giving ARRW or airbreathers to the carrier will give the CVBG more strike potential without sacrificing its existing strike load.

A CSG performing strike is not out of the question, but it would hardly be the first choice. The first choice would be B-21 with JSOWs, or B-52 with ARRW, or something similar. The Air Force is the ideal rapid response strike force because they have actually long ranged aircraft that can carry big weapons. If the USAF ever gets a internally carried, air-breathing hypersonic weapon, it will probably be sized for F-35 though. Which means the USN can use it. Which will be good.

Since the USN is unlikely to ever get a long ranged carrier aircraft in the near future (something comparable in performance, preferably better, than ATA) I don't see how that will change much. It's going to be Super Hornets and a handful of F-35C's for the next couple of decades.

Something like AGM-183 on a submarine would probably make the most sense in the future for the USN, as far as contributing rather than sitting on the sidelines. It should be relatively simple to put a few ARRWs in a VPM or something than finding room on an already overcrowded DDG's deck, or ripping out Mark 41 modules for a new VLS system, and a submarine is more likely to be in place to actually attack things, because US subs are fairly stealthy and can be expected to be able to get close to enemy shores.

X-51 and AGM-183's fin-related problems were dropped in the same post by someone, as if they were related or something, and not separated by about a decade.

Anyway yes, all those tech demonstrator programs were successful and delivered what they promised.

LOL. Okay, do you have any actual evidence of that? The BEST X-51 did was fly at Mach 5.1 (after being boosted to Mach 4.9 by the ATACMS booster). It did not reach Mach 6 as intended. It barely accelerated under scramjet power. It never did fly under power for the full 5 minutes as I recall. And that, the most "successful" flight, almost didn't happen. The people in charge were literally almost too scared to try. "What if we fail?" Well, you can't fail if you don't try I suppose.

HyFly was an abject failure.

RATTLRS went nowhere. (No, it wasn't suppose to be a "jobs program". It was supposed to be a Mach 3 cruise missile.) If you can't think of a use for that just look around. It's obvious.

X-51's JP7 scramjet propulsion is being continued with HAWC.

HyFly was a "failure" because it was an exotic engine system. Considering Boeing recently received funding to bring back the DCR engine for ground tests, although I doubt it will fly again, I don't really see how it failed at anything. It proved that the technology was too immature for use in a weapon. That's really all it set out to do, since it's DARPA. It would have been good if it had done more, but proving a technology requires more time to bake is a good result. It lets you eliminate the blind alleys.

OTOH RATTLRS was never going to transition to a weapon system. DARPA doesn't really fund that, that's the services' jobs.

The point of RATTLRS was to test the YJ-102R, which was an evolved version of a SLAT competitor's engine from the early 1990's. It had more promise as a supersonic target drone but perhaps it was too expensive to produce, or more likely the services never identified a need for a relatively slow Mach 3 "missile" or whatever Lockheed-Martin was hoping they'd buy, when they had far better performing weapons on the horizon, like AGM-183. Or for that matter, better performing target drones, like GQM-163. That said, RATTLRS did complete its test cycle, the engine apparently worked fine.

However, this is hardly surprising, since the YJ-102R is essentially a slightly more fuel efficient form of a J58. Not exactly bleeding edge, nor was too much performance being asked of it. Not exactly sure why you're surprised no one in DOD picked up on a missile that was not much better than what has already been achieved by something like P-700 Granit in the 1980's, after decades of funding scramjet and Mach 5+ hypersonic weapons. The answer should be obvious.

 

[tequilashooter]

A VLS missile would need to fit within Mark 41's dimensions, which are pretty constrained for any sort of high performance supersonic missile.

So far the USN doesn't really have much of a better option than Tomahawk and possibly LRASM for higher end threats, but Tomahawk seems perfectly adequate for knocking out S-400s or whatever. Something like AGM-183 would too big to fit in current VLS and require making larger ones, or using some sort of external box, both of which have their own limitations. Bear in mind this is for a platform that goes slightly slower than an LA mid-week morning traffic, at best. So you've mostly negated the benefits of the hypersonic weapon.

S-400s are for ballistic targets, aircrafts, cruise missiles which the tomahawk falls in the category of that's like saying Kalibr is sufficient enough for an/spy-6 radar using SM-6, but AFAIK there is no Naval S-400 version that is operational yet, but eventually it will come later. China's DF-21 does not feature thrust vectoring capabilities that are found in Yars, Kinzhal or Iskander, in my opinion its not just that the Chinese lack the current defensive capabilities, but also offensive capabilities have to be worked on as well for them

Something like F-18E/F or F-35 is probably going to have to carry a hypersonic missile externally, yes. "Everything being Carrier Strike Group related" more or less summarizes the past 40 or so years of US Navy thinking about strike: it's an extension of the CVBG and its escorts. The escorts aren't lacking for strike at all nowadays, nor will they in the future, since Tomahawk is going to get the new Block V upgrade soon. I have no idea what ripping out Tomahawk cells and replacing them with ARRW cells will do, but giving ARRW or airbreathers to the carrier will give the CVBG more strike potential without sacrificing its existing strike load.

A CSG performing strike is not out of the question, but it would hardly be the first choice. The first choice would be B-21 with JSOWs, or B-52 with ARRW, or something similar. The Air Force is the ideal rapid response strike force because they have actually long ranged aircraft that can carry big weapons. If the USAF ever gets a internally carried, air-breathing hypersonic weapon, it will probably be sized for F-35 though. Which means the USN can use it. Which will be good.

Since the USN is unlikely to ever get a long ranged carrier aircraft in the near future (something comparable in performance, preferably better, than ATA) I don't see how that will change much. It's going to be Super Hornets and a handful of F-35C's for the next couple of decades.

US Navy with a google search states 490 ships and 11 of those are aircraft carriers and usually those aircraft carriers are surrounded with 6 ship platforms and usually more leaving more ships out. So I guess the Chinese and Russians have to only worry about is aircraft carriers since they are the only things that are equipped with aircrafts and those aircrafts are equipped with hypersonic missiles, is that correct? I am sure there are some users here that feel a little unsettled hearing that as much as they do with a preference of wanting to also have a nice amount of hypersonic missiles on land than having them limited to just on Subs. Make life easier for the Russians and Chinese

 

[Ronny]

short term hypersonic weapon for USN is the SM-6IB aka the SM-6 with 21 inches booster.

 

[NMaude]

Something like AGM-183 on a submarine would probably make the most sense in the future for the USN, as far as contributing rather than sitting on the sidelines.

The AGM-183 could probably be fired from a modified Ohio-class SSBN with suitable encapsulation for underwater launch.

 

[Kat Tsun]

A VLS missile would need to fit within Mark 41's dimensions, which are pretty constrained for any sort of high performance supersonic missile.

So far the USN doesn't really have much of a better option than Tomahawk and possibly LRASM for higher end threats, but Tomahawk seems perfectly adequate for knocking out S-400s or whatever. Something like AGM-183 would too big to fit in current VLS and require making larger ones, or using some sort of external box, both of which have their own limitations. Bear in mind this is for a platform that goes slightly slower than an LA mid-week morning traffic, at best. So you've mostly negated the benefits of the hypersonic weapon.

S-400s are for ballistic targets, aircrafts, cruise missiles which the tomahawk falls in the category of that's like saying Kalibr is sufficient enough for an/spy-6 radar using SM-6, but AFAIK there is no Naval S-400 version that is operational yet, but eventually it will come later. China's DF-21 does not feature thrust vectoring capabilities that are found in Yars, Kinzhal or Iskander, in my opinion its not just that the Chinese lack the current defensive capabilities, but also offensive capabilities have to be worked on as well for them

Something like F-18E/F or F-35 is probably going to have to carry a hypersonic missile externally, yes. "Everything being Carrier Strike Group related" more or less summarizes the past 40 or so years of US Navy thinking about strike: it's an extension of the CVBG and its escorts. The escorts aren't lacking for strike at all nowadays, nor will they in the future, since Tomahawk is going to get the new Block V upgrade soon. I have no idea what ripping out Tomahawk cells and replacing them with ARRW cells will do, but giving ARRW or airbreathers to the carrier will give the CVBG more strike potential without sacrificing its existing strike load.

A CSG performing strike is not out of the question, but it would hardly be the first choice. The first choice would be B-21 with JSOWs, or B-52 with ARRW, or something similar. The Air Force is the ideal rapid response strike force because they have actually long ranged aircraft that can carry big weapons. If the USAF ever gets a internally carried, air-breathing hypersonic weapon, it will probably be sized for F-35 though. Which means the USN can use it. Which will be good.

Since the USN is unlikely to ever get a long ranged carrier aircraft in the near future (something comparable in performance, preferably better, than ATA) I don't see how that will change much. It's going to be Super Hornets and a handful of F-35C's for the next couple of decades.

US Navy with a google search states 490 ships and 11 of those are aircraft carriers and usually those aircraft carriers are surrounded with 6 ship platforms and usually more leaving more ships out. So I guess the Chinese and Russians have to only worry about is aircraft carriers since they are the only things that are equipped with aircrafts and those aircrafts are equipped with hypersonic missiles, is that correct? I am sure there are some users here that feel a little unsettled hearing that as much as they do with a preference of wanting to also have a nice amount of hypersonic missiles on land than having them limited to just on Subs. Make life easier for the Russians and Chinese

S-400 is so effective at stopping Tomahawk that the US Navy had no problem avoiding it entirely through decent route planning and up-to-date EOOB information.

I don't recall the Chinese or Russians having figured out a bulletproof solution to Tomahawk, so they seem to be in the same bucket as they were in the '80's. The only difference is the US stopped deploying nuclear warheads with Tomahawk, but it isn't going to suddenly start putting atomic bombs in AGM-183 either. If it needs to it can easily rearm the Tomahawks with nukes anyway, although that is rather implausible considering it has superior delivery systems nowadays.

In any hypothetical Second Pacific War the US Navy is going to be operating with multiple self-supporting carrier battlegroups. Probably far away from the South China Sea. And conducting long-range airstrikes to support USAF minelaying or air penetration operations. Meanwhile submarines operate forward, within the sea, until the PLAAF or PLANAF or whoever they're fighting has been attrited enough to allow the USN to drive forward. The submarines are the only thing that can operate in contested sea denial waters, so the PLANAF will have its hands full trying to sanitize the sea and the PLAAF will be driving off American and Allied air forces from its MPAs.

Really, the same thing they were planning to do in the Norwegian Sea in the early 1980's. Certainly much has changed since then, but nothing fundamental. Slightly faster missiles don't make much a difference in the end, they just mean you need bigger AEW. And the Russians and Chinese don't appear to have anything comparable to AGM-183 outside of the Strategic Rocket Forces/2nd Artillery Corps, with their newest potential non-strategic weapon being a warmed over Onyx (Brahmos).

Not sure what a "really fast missile" on "an air defense destroyer a few hundred miles away from the theater" adds to that equation. Perhaps the fear of a destroyer being in position to fire in two days' time will make the Chinese or Russians back down from something nefarious, like disrupting regional soybean production? I'm a tad incredulous at that idea. OTOH a flight of B-1s or B-52s at Anderson AFB with ARRWs is a bit more serious. Unlike a ship, an airplane can be in position to fire in a few hours and there's very little the PRC can do to stop it without drastically escalating to striking Guam with IRBMs for the sake of an underwater rock.

Something like AGM-183 on a submarine would probably make the most sense in the future for the USN, as far as contributing rather than sitting on the sidelines.

The AGM-183 could probably be fired from a modified Ohio-class SSBN with suitable encapsulation for underwater launch.

My understanding is the USN is looking at acquiring a few additional Columbias to fill the SSGN role, eventually.

These will probably carry ARRWs, or some similar boost-glide weapon, assuming the Block V 774's don't.

 

[Josh_TN]

The USNs hypersonic program is CPS using the SWERVE glider. It’s possible they will update the glider some time in the future but I suspect the two stage booster arrangement and diameter are fixed, so I can’t see AGM-183 being adopted. It would suffer a massive performance loss being launched from the surface.

 

[bring_it_on]

If anything I am looking forward to new VLS for ships or to use existing VLS to use scramjets. Eventually other superpowers will have decent ABM capabilities for their ships. I am still shocked air launched hypersonic projects seem to be more of a priority than having hypersonic missile projects for the U.S. Navy.

The US Navy has 2 hypersonic weapons currently in the works in the IR-CPS and the new SM-6 variant (1B), both of which will be in service at or before 2025. Beyond that, there are a few things in the fire. DARPA, last year, was going to fund some early work on concepts for getting the Tactical Boost Glide glider onto ships. So perhaps that could be the next option though that would require a new AUR as the current ARRW booster would not be compatible with the MK41. The Navy is doing some work on an Air Launched hypersonic weapon program. The original DARPA/AFRL HAWC is roughly 20 ft. in length and thus incompatible with the AC's weapons elevators, requiring the Navy to either modify that design or seek some other solution. I'd much rather the Navy concentrate on fielding the 2 weapons that are the most mature in some decent quantity aboard ships, and submarines, before embarking on any other VLS launched hypersonic weapon.

If they go through and modify the Zumwalt class to carry the IR-CPS then that will buy them some time until the new LSC is operational around the mid to late 2030's. It is going to take a fair bit of time to build up a decent inventory of IR-CPS and SM-6 1B rounds across the submarine and surface fleets. But at least we have a hot production line for the latter, and a factory being built or completed to support production at scale for the former. At some point you have to buy these things at a decent rate and build up an inventory. All of these programs are currently structured for rapid prototyping and prototype fielding. I'd like to see a few of them become formal programs of record and transition to acquisition phase before we start adding additional prototyping efforts on the plate.

 

[Josh_TN]

It really is unnecessary to mount CPS in a destroyer or cruiser type, IMO. I think the LUSV (or more ideally, whatever manned platform supersedes it) is the logical place to store giant long ranged hypersonics. CPS not only is too wide for current VLS cells, it also would require much more deck penetration - it is a much longer weapon. The best solution to my mind is using a large off the shelf commercial design with plenty of surplus volume and weight and then base far away from any potential threat. With a range measured in thousands of miles (and a minimum range likely measured in many hundreds), you can afford to keep such a platform in very benign waters outside the first island chain, or deep in the Atlantic, and still be well within range of your target set. The new oiler/station ship design is twenty knot capable and just starting to crank out replacements for the Kaiser class; it would be a natural fit to the USN and have ample space and weight allowances for as many CPS as you can afford to fit in it. Space and power for basic decoys and defenses are already included in the design. Bonus: visually on or ISAR, it easily could be mistaken for a medium tanker, or at a minimum an actual USN UNREP ship. Targeting it could be complicated.

 

[tequilashooter]

S-400 is so effective at stopping Tomahawk that the US Navy had no problem avoiding it entirely through decent route planning and up-to-date EOOB information.

I don't recall the Chinese or Russians having figured out a bulletproof solution to Tomahawk, so they seem to be in the same bucket as they were in the '80's. The only difference is the US stopped deploying nuclear warheads with Tomahawk, but it isn't going to suddenly start putting atomic bombs in AGM-183 either. If it needs to it can easily rearm the Tomahawks with nukes anyway, although that is rather implausible considering it has superior delivery systems nowadays.

1. S-400 is located in Latakia, The strikes were carried around in Damascus. Are those areas super close or very far apart?

2. I could have just ended it on the 1st point but one sides claims all hit their target, the other states 71 out of 103 were intercepted. I would carry this conversation on to another thread but with these kinds of topics moderators and an admin will more than likely close it.

3. If you still believe the air defense is that ineffective Iran would have already had it and I dont think there would be a TAI-TFX thread in this forum either

Something like F-18E/F or F-35 is probably going to have to carry a hypersonic missile externally, yes. "Everything being Carrier Strike Group related" more or less summarizes the past 40 or so years of US Navy thinking about strike: it's an extension of the CVBG and its escorts. The escorts aren't lacking for strike at all nowadays, nor will they in the future, since Tomahawk is going to get the new Block V upgrade soon. I have no idea what ripping out Tomahawk cells and replacing them with ARRW cells will do, but giving ARRW or airbreathers to the carrier will give the CVBG more strike potential without sacrificing its existing strike load.

Yasen-Ms appear to currently have long reaching Torpedos in terms of ranges. For arguments for the favorability of this thread and you I will say that the newest and latest U.S. have a better stealth signature and SONAR technology. But depending on the areas of interests I dont think their nuclear reactor SONAR project will just be limited in the Arctic area and new satellite projects for better footprint tracking of ships where SONAR that can be placed anywhere in the ocean can cue satellites and sattlies will cue ships or subs with tracking data to target carriers. Russia would feel better just having to worry about SLBMs than having to worry about low flying maneuverable plasma nukes or conventional warheads. Thank god BIO and Ronny brought up USN missile projects I did not know existed.

Really, the same thing they were planning to do in the Norwegian Sea in the early 1980's. Certainly much has changed since then, but nothing fundamental. Slightly faster missiles don't make much a difference in the end, they just mean you need bigger AEW. And the Russians and Chinese don't appear to have anything comparable to AGM-183 outside of the Strategic Rocket Forces/2nd Artillery Corps, with their newest potential non-strategic weapon being a warmed over Onyx (Brahmos).

Not only to piss you off and maybe users on this thread but in terms of having anything similar to AGM-183 I heard they have claimed they had successful interceptions in Kasputin Yar with missiles that are suppose to simulate specifically AGM-183 and Deep Strike with S-400, S-350, Buk-M3s. https://topwar.ru/164483-neozvuchen...to-imitirovali-rakety-misheni-favorit-rm.html Sadly I dont know the maneuverability of how many Gs the Yars, kinzhal or iskander can pull in comparison to the AGM-183. But atleast they didnt say anything so far on intercepting hypersonic air to ground missile like GZUR to simulate HAWC.

 

[sferrin]

X-51's JP7 scramjet propulsion is being continued with HAWC.

HyFly was a "failure" because it was an exotic engine system. Considering Boeing recently received funding to bring back the DCR engine for ground tests, although I doubt it will fly again, I don't really see how it failed at anything. It proved that the technology was too immature for use in a weapon. That's really all it set out to do, since it's DARPA. It would have been good if it had done more, but proving a technology requires more time to bake is a good result. It lets you eliminate the blind alleys.

OTOH RATTLRS was never going to transition to a weapon system. DARPA doesn't really fund that, that's the services' jobs.

The point of RATTLRS was to test the YJ-102R, which was an evolved version of a SLAT competitor's engine from the early 1990's.

I was with you until that. The YJ-102R is a turbine engine. SLAT used a ramjet.

 

[NMaude]

It would suffer a massive performance loss being launched from the surface.

I could see the AGM-183 (Or RGM-183 in this case) being fitted with a launch-booster either a modified Mk-72 or a cut down GEM-40VN.

 

[Josh_TN]

Why would they reinvent the wheel when the have an established two stage booster they are developing with/for the US Army? First test firing are supposed to occur by 2023. It seems likely that if anything the TBG glider is smaller than the SWERVE one the USN is using, so it would be easy to back fit that glider to the CPS if the USN wanted a more efficient/longer ranged impactor.

 

[NMaude]

when the have an established two stage booster they are developing with/for the US Army?

Which booster is this?

 

[Josh_TN]

Google "Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Strike"

https://www.overtdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/LRHW-1024x601.jpg

 

[NMaude]

Google "Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Strike"

https://www.overtdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/LRHW-1024x601.jpg

Thanks.

 

[Kat Tsun]

X-51's JP7 scramjet propulsion is being continued with HAWC.

HyFly was a "failure" because it was an exotic engine system. Considering Boeing recently received funding to bring back the DCR engine for ground tests, although I doubt it will fly again, I don't really see how it failed at anything. It proved that the technology was too immature for use in a weapon. That's really all it set out to do, since it's DARPA. It would have been good if it had done more, but proving a technology requires more time to bake is a good result. It lets you eliminate the blind alleys.

OTOH RATTLRS was never going to transition to a weapon system. DARPA doesn't really fund that, that's the services' jobs.

The point of RATTLRS was to test the YJ-102R, which was an evolved version of a SLAT competitor's engine from the early 1990's.

I was with you until that. The YJ-102R is a turbine engine. SLAT used a ramjet.

My mistake, I forgot where I read that YJ102R was descended from some failed 1990's SLAT powerplant. Apparently the actual alternatives were a Vought ramjet and something by Teledyne Ryan. I'm probably conflating it with LRASM-B or something.

It's a minor point regardless, since I was intending to illustrate that the thinking behind a Mach 3-ish missile was already outdated at the time (~2006). The more serious matter is that the entire point of RATTLRS was to test the new fuel efficient engine for Mach 3 application, not to find applications for the engine. There's no way it would evolve to a weapons system for any service since at the time they were already looking at X-51, and various boost-glide weapons, which offered superior performance.

The idea of the Mach 3 cruise missile was something invented by Lockheed-Martin and has nothing to do with RATTLRS as a program of record, which was entirely successful in all its intended goals and scopes outside of some Lockheed marketing manager's fever dreams. AIUI the engine worked well enough and completed its flight tests fine. That's a success, even if it doesn't translate to making a red, white, and blue Granite.

The USNs hypersonic program is CPS using the SWERVE glider. It’s possible they will update the glider some time in the future but I suspect the two stage booster arrangement and diameter are fixed, so I can’t see AGM-183 being adopted. It would suffer a massive performance loss being launched from the surface.

I thought the USN and USAF were using a common glider for ARRW and...whatever the USN is making, though? And presumably whatever the Army gets, too? The boosters will be different but the actual weapons deployed are supposed to be the same I think.

edit: Okay so C-HGB is only Army and Navy, unless the Air Force just sorta tagged along.

S-400 is so effective at stopping Tomahawk that the US Navy had no problem avoiding it entirely through decent route planning and up-to-date EOOB information.

I don't recall the Chinese or Russians having figured out a bulletproof solution to Tomahawk, so they seem to be in the same bucket as they were in the '80's. The only difference is the US stopped deploying nuclear warheads with Tomahawk, but it isn't going to suddenly start putting atomic bombs in AGM-183 either. If it needs to it can easily rearm the Tomahawks with nukes anyway, although that is rather implausible considering it has superior delivery systems nowadays.

1. S-400 is located in Latakia, The strikes were carried around in Damascus. Are those areas super close or very far apart?

2. I could have just ended it on the 1st point but one sides claims all hit their target, the other states 71 out of 103 were intercepted. I would carry this conversation on to another thread but with these kinds of topics moderators and an admin will more than likely close it.

3. If you still believe the air defense is that ineffective Iran would have already had it and I dont think there would be a TAI-TFX thread in this forum either

1) The Israelis have no trouble penetrating S-400s with proper mission planning either.

2) There are pictures of the airbase after the strike. You could always count the craters.

3) Air defense isn't ineffective, it just isn't going to produce an impenetrable bastion. That's not really what SAMs or AAA or whatever do, at least in practice. You can of course shoot down a dozen cruise missiles, which might matter if the cruise missiles are carrying dispensers or bulk explosive warheads, but it won't mean more than a wooden nickel if they're atomic.

Point being that there is no serious defense against Tomahawk that is completely bulletproof. And it is a slow missile whose flight performance mirrors target drones, ostensibly the things which SAMs can kill routinely when they're flown over instrumented test ranges at known angles and distances. And AGM-183 is going to make the air defense job that much harder.

Not really sure why the USN requires anything besides Tomahawk on its surface platforms, since that provides more than adequate strike capability for the surface escorts, and said escorts are never going to be in good position to deploy anything of the sort (hypersonic or otherwise) except in the most permissive of environments.

Really, the same thing they were planning to do in the Norwegian Sea in the early 1980's. Certainly much has changed since then, but nothing fundamental. Slightly faster missiles don't make much a difference in the end, they just mean you need bigger AEW. And the Russians and Chinese don't appear to have anything comparable to AGM-183 outside of the Strategic Rocket Forces/2nd Artillery Corps, with their newest potential non-strategic weapon being a warmed over Onyx (Brahmos).

Not only to piss you off and maybe users on this thread but in terms of having anything similar to AGM-183 I heard they have claimed they had successful interceptions in Kasputin Yar with missiles that are suppose to simulate specifically AGM-183 and Deep Strike with S-400, S-350, Buk-M3s. https://topwar.ru/164483-neozvuchen...to-imitirovali-rakety-misheni-favorit-rm.html Sadly I dont know the maneuverability of how many Gs the Yars, kinzhal or iskander can pull in comparison to the AGM-183. But atleast they didnt say anything so far on intercepting hypersonic air to ground missile like GZUR to simulate HAWC.

I wouldn't be shocked.

Test ranges are very good at inflating the performance of surface to air missiles. They cannot accurately replicate how SAMs are used in the real world, but they're very good for establishing parameters for comparing individual SAM systems in specific situations.

Avoiding SAMs is basically a matter of route planning, which depends on time to target (which is distance to target, and target and weapon speeds, and distance of target to its next hide), and an accurate EOOB. SAMs can be easily avoided as long as you know where they are. S-400 is very visible both electronically and physically. It would be hard to mistake an S-400 battery for something like a bakery or a warehouse full of beets, which are harmless to cruise missiles, and so it would be very easy to map out where the S-400 is located.

The danger is that some SAMs might pop up along the flight path. But S-400 isn't mobile enough for this since it's a battery-battalion based system. So the actual effects of low altitudes versus high altitudes for aircraft is more of a concern when an S-400 is in theater, than in how to defeat the S-400 per se. The S-400 defends deep targets by forcing aircraft to fly at low altitudes to break radar horizon, in absence of sufficient jamming/EW support, and use standoff missiles to attack it or things within its defense zone.

Either it increases the number of aircraft needing to be mustered to defeat it (ideally, an outsize expenditure of resources are needed) in terms of sorties, or it forces smaller air forces to resort to less efficient methods of attack, like carrying low volume cruise missiles at low altitude to sling at targets, instead of racks full of SDBs or something.

This applies to both manned and unmanned aircraft, except cruise missiles sort of live in the low altitude, and no one cares if a Tomahawk or two gets shot down.

A hyperglider OTOH tries to defeat a SAM through energy alone. Not impossible at all considering the Pershing II managed it well enough, and even very high energy SAM systems like THAAD have a ground range measured in a whopping "a dozen or two" of kilometers against high energy gliders. I'm not sure how S-400 compares to THAAD or MIM-104 MSE but I suspect it's not much better against hypergliders.

That said, the chances of ARRW needing to navigate a S-400 defense zone are pretty small. It will be routed similar to a Tomahawk i.e. to avoid the S-400. Since it is faster it can be routed further from the defense zone of a SAM system to hit the same target as a Tomahawk.

 

[bring_it_on]

edit: Okay so C-HGB is only Army and Navy, unless the Air Force just sorta tagged along.

It was a tri-service glider but the AF completed the CDR for its weapons program (HCSW) and shelved it a couple of years ago, choosing to invest instead in the AGM-183A given no other service was fully invested in taking the TBG glider through into production (the USAF had been invested in its development since 2014) while two other services were already onboard the Common glide body.

 

[mkellytx]

The previous two errors were acknowledged to be human error it test prep, not in the test article. That doesn’t inspire confidence, especially given a third failure of some undetermined type that definitely resulted in the vehicle never even separating (again).

It's super disappointing to see stuff like this about my former squadron, particularly since the Sq/CC last mentioned in the news is a friend from ROTC and a TPS grad join while I was in the squadron. It makes me wonder how much of this is a lack of understanding of test conduct, versus clickbait drive traffic. All of this to say it isn't necessarily a weapons fail if all of the support assets aren't available, but I digress. If I was the test conductor on seat I wouldn't hesitate to call kings X if the support assets available weren't sufficient to collect the data needed from the test.

 

[tequilashooter]

1) The Israelis have no trouble penetrating S-400s with proper mission planning either.

2) There are pictures of the airbase after the strike. You could always count the craters.

3) Air defense isn't ineffective, it just isn't going to produce an impenetrable bastion. That's not really what SAMs or AAA or whatever do, at least in practice. You can of course shoot down a dozen cruise missiles, which might matter if the cruise missiles are carrying dispensers or bulk explosive warheads, but it won't mean more than a wooden nickel if they're atomic.

Point being that there is no serious defense against Tomahawk that is completely bulletproof. And it is a slow missile whose flight performance mirrors target drones, ostensibly the things which SAMs can kill routinely when they're flown over instrumented test ranges at known angles and distances. And AGM-183 is going to make the air defense job that much harder.

Not really sure why the USN requires anything besides Tomahawk on its surface platforms, since that provides more than adequate strike capability for the surface escorts, and said escorts are never going to be in good position to deploy anything of the sort (hypersonic or otherwise) except in the most permissive of environments.

1. I mean yeah they have an agreement with Russians not fire at them, same with not using S-300s against them. If they have or havent is something the air defense operators can say themselves.The Chinese can even claim they have problem penetrating an/spy ships for all I care. Are most of Israel's targets close to Demascus?

2. Yes the missiles that got through can do damage who could have figured.

3. It was basically outdated short range air defenses vs outdated cruise missiles. if that kind of attack was directed at a superpower the attacker would get a missile flying back at it. I would also like to see a AGM-183 tested against a S-400, Buk-M3 or S-350 but if it goes down to that point we will all be nuked.

I wouldn't be shocked.

Test ranges are very good at inflating the performance of surface to air missiles. They cannot accurately replicate how SAMs are used in the real world, but they're very good for establishing parameters for comparing individual SAM systems in specific situations.

Avoiding SAMs is basically a matter of route planning, which depends on time to target (which is distance to target, and target and weapon speeds, and distance of target to its next hide), and an accurate EOOB. SAMs can be easily avoided as long as you know where they are. S-400 is very visible both electronically and physically. It would be hard to mistake an S-400 battery for something like a bakery or a warehouse full of beets, which are harmless to cruise missiles, and so it would be very easy to map out where the S-400 is located.

The danger is that some SAMs might pop up along the flight path. But S-400 isn't mobile enough for this since it's a battery-battalion based system. So the actual effects of low altitudes versus high altitudes for aircraft is more of a concern when an S-400 is in theater, than in how to defeat the S-400 per se. The S-400 defends deep targets by forcing aircraft to fly at low altitudes to break radar horizon, in absence of sufficient jamming/EW support, and use standoff missiles to attack it or things within its defense zone.

Either it increases the number of aircraft needing to be mustered to defeat it (ideally, an outsize expenditure of resources are needed) in terms of sorties, or it forces smaller air forces to resort to less efficient methods of attack, like carrying low volume cruise missiles at low altitude to sling at targets, instead of racks full of SDBs or something.

This applies to both manned and unmanned aircraft, except cruise missiles sort of live in the low altitude, and no one cares if a Tomahawk or two gets shot down.

A hyperglider OTOH tries to defeat a SAM through energy alone. Not impossible at all considering the Pershing II managed it well enough, and even very high energy SAM systems like THAAD have a ground range measured in a whopping "a dozen or two" of kilometers against high energy gliders. I'm not sure how S-400 compares to THAAD or MIM-104 MSE but I suspect it's not much better against hypergliders.

That said, the chances of ARRW needing to navigate a S-400 defense zone are pretty small. It will be routed similar to a Tomahawk i.e. to avoid the S-400. Since it is faster it can be routed further from the defense zone of a SAM system to hit the same target as a Tomahawk.

They did give maneuvering performance of the missiles they were intercepting for those 3 air defenses.

SAMs can be avoided if there isnt 360 degree coverage or that aircrafts are far enough to launch weapons. SAMs could have been avoided in the Kosovo war but aircrafts were still shot down. Most of Serbia's air defenses was made up of S-125s and S-75s meaning the radiation missiles had 4-5 times the range meaning that on paper there shouldn't have been a single aircraft shot down but that wasn't the case. Not saying they should have gotten the latest S-300 systems that were used in Russia but at least S-200 systems which not just for longer range purposes but also semi-active radar homing phase instead of just radio command guidance used on S-125s and S-75s.

Where the S-125s and S-75s were placed they were not mobile either but still hit aircrafts. I am not trying to be funny there either.

Of course the above info is by no means a good comparison to even use as an argument against modern airforce vs modern air defense where both sides use EW and all that good stuff. But if it did come down to that mostly a country with enough resources to purchase those modern air defenses will just target ships using tomahawks or target air bases where aircrafts reload and refuel. Not fun like the old days.

Are their sources that THAAD or AEGIS even intercept HGVs? Only thing I heard was intercepting ballistic missiles and some news of satellites to track HGVs and scramjets.

S-400s wont be used against tomahawks that is the job of short range air defenses. HGVs dont fly in lower altitudes than tomahawks they fly high giving radars a longer distance to track them. The S-400 in terms of Syria's location is probably high in a mountain to track low altitude targets at a farther distance along with current hypersonic missiles. Maybe instead of targeting buildings the interception rate could have been a little higher if directed towards air defenses.

 

[Ronny]

Not only to piss you off and maybe users on this thread but in terms of having anything similar to AGM-183 I heard they have claimed they had successful interceptions in Kasputin Yar with missiles that are suppose to simulate specifically AGM-183 and Deep Strike with S-400, S-350, Buk-M3s. https://topwar.ru/164483-neozvuchen...to-imitirovali-rakety-misheni-favorit-rm.html Sadly I dont know the maneuverability of how many Gs the Yars, kinzhal or iskander can pull in comparison to the AGM-183. But atleast they didnt say anything so far on intercepting hypersonic air to ground missile like GZUR to simulate HAWC.

From that link the missiles they intercepted are SAM from Favorite-RM family

The hypersonic target missiles of the Favorit-RM family will prepare the calculations of the Buk-M3, S-350 Vityaz and S-400 Triumph air defense systems to repulse massive strikes by the Deep Strike tactical ballistic missiles and AGM-183A aeroballistic missiles

The answer to this question is more than obvious: being a modification of the 5V55P anti-aircraft guided missile S-300PS anti-aircraft missile system, the Favorit-RM target missile retained the entire spectrum of flight technical qualities of the first.

In particular, the maximum flight speed of this product at the time of burning out the charge of a solid rocket engine reaches hypersonic values of 6650–7200 km / h (6.25–6.75 M), while on a descending branch of the trajectory (during diving at angles of 70 —80) Favorit-RM speed can reach 4.5-4M in the stratospheric and 3.5-2.5M in the tropospheric sections of the trajectory.

The top speed that Favorit-RM reach at burn out is 7200 km/h, keep in mind that this is the burn out speed, after burn out the missile reduce speed very rapidly. While on descending branch of the trajectory it only fly at Mach 4-4.5 in the stratospheric and 3.5-2.5M in the tropospheric sections
For comparison, a boost glider such as AGM-183 can fly 1000 miles in 10-12 minutes, so average speed of 8000-9600 km/h (Mach 7.5-9).
In short, the target they used in the test are much slower than a boost glider and more comparable to something like AARGM-ER in term of speed over most part of its trajectory.

 

[sferrin]

My mistake, I forgot where I read that YJ102R was descended from some failed 1990's SLAT powerplant. Apparently the actual alternatives were a Vought ramjet and something by Teledyne Ryan. I'm probably conflating it with LRASM-B or something.

One of them was based on ASALM which they later also tried to make into LRASM-B. None of the SLAT concepts were turbine-powered.

It's a minor point regardless, since I was intending to illustrate that the thinking behind a Mach 3-ish missile was already outdated at the time (~2006).

Hardly. They're still buying subsonic Tomahawks. If those aren't "outdated" I don't see how a Mach 3 missile is.

The more serious matter is that the entire point of RATTLRS was to test the new fuel efficient engine for Mach 3 application, not to find applications for the engine. There's no way it would evolve to a weapons system for any service

Sure. That's why there were these:





And why Lockheed sled-tested submunition release for it here:

since at the time they were already looking at X-51, and various boost-glide weapons, which offered superior performance.

X-51 was NEVER intended to transition into an operational weapon.

The idea of the Mach 3 cruise missile was something invented by Lockheed-Martin and has nothing to do with RATTLRS as a program of record, which was entirely successful in all its intended goals and scopes outside of some Lockheed marketing manager's fever dreams.

Okay. If you say so. Perhaps you could direct us to evidence the RATTLRS program was "entirely successful"?

 

[sferrin]

The previous two errors were acknowledged to be human error it test prep, not in the test article. That doesn’t inspire confidence, especially given a third failure of some undetermined type that definitely resulted in the vehicle never even separating (again).

It's super disappointing to see stuff like this about my former squadron, particularly since the Sq/CC last mentioned in the news is a friend from ROTC and a TPS grad join while I was in the squadron. It makes me wonder how much of this is a lack of understanding of test conduct, versus clickbait drive traffic. All of this to say it isn't necessarily a weapons fail if all of the support assets aren't available, but I digress. If I was the test conductor on seat I wouldn't hesitate to call kings X if the support assets available weren't sufficient to collect the data needed from the test.

Nobody is immune from making mistakes. And refusing to acknowledge that will only ensure they continue to make them.

 

[tequilashooter]

The top speed that Favorit-RM reach at burn out is 7200 km/h, keep in mind that this is the burn out speed, after burn out the missile reduce speed very rapidly. While on descending branch of the trajectory it only fly at Mach 4-4.5 in the stratospheric and 3.5-2.5M in the tropospheric sections
For comparison, a boost glider such as AGM-183 can fly 1000 miles in 10-12 minutes, so average speed of 8000-9600 km/h (Mach 7.5-9).
In short, the target they used in the test are much slower than a boost glider and more comparable to something like AARGM-ER in term of speed over most part of its trajectory.

Is that the official top speed? I had one source telling me mach 20 and another source telling me mach 40-mach 48 for being 4 times faster than kinzhal.

 

[sferrin]

The top speed that Favorit-RM reach at burn out is 7200 km/h, keep in mind that this is the burn out speed, after burn out the missile reduce speed very rapidly. While on descending branch of the trajectory it only fly at Mach 4-4.5 in the stratospheric and 3.5-2.5M in the tropospheric sections
For comparison, a boost glider such as AGM-183 can fly 1000 miles in 10-12 minutes, so average speed of 8000-9600 km/h (Mach 7.5-9).
In short, the target they used in the test are much slower than a boost glider and more comparable to something like AARGM-ER in term of speed over most part of its trajectory.

Is that the official top speed? I had one source telling me mach 20 and another source telling me mach 40-mach 48 for being 4 times faster than kinzhal.

Both of those are laughable for ANY S-300/400/500.

 

[Arjen]

Mach 48 - that's enough to leave Earth orbit. Aiming for Mars?

 

[Josh_TN]

The Mach 8-9 figure represents average speed - I believe he just divided distance over flight time, and both the range and time were very vaguely reported. The gliders top speed would be right after separating and its slowest speed would probably be over the target before its dive, so it would be both faster and slower than the calculated figure.

 

[Ronny]

The top speed that Favorit-RM reach at burn out is 7200 km/h, keep in mind that this is the burn out speed, after burn out the missile reduce speed very rapidly. While on descending branch of the trajectory it only fly at Mach 4-4.5 in the stratospheric and 3.5-2.5M in the tropospheric sections
For comparison, a boost glider such as AGM-183 can fly 1000 miles in 10-12 minutes, so average speed of 8000-9600 km/h (Mach 7.5-9).
In short, the target they used in the test are much slower than a boost glider and more comparable to something like AARGM-ER in term of speed over most part of its trajectory.

Is that the official top speed? I had one source telling me mach 20 and another source telling me mach 40-mach 48 for being 4 times faster than kinzhal.

Boost glider speed isn't a constant value.
It is somewhat like a bullet, fastest at burn out then slow down gradually. Mach 48 is impossible for anything with ARRW size though.

 

[NMaude]

Mach 48 - that's enough to leave Earth orbit. Aiming for Mars?

It certainly as IIRC orbital speed is ~M25.

 

[Kat Tsun]

It's a minor point regardless, since I was intending to illustrate that the thinking behind a Mach 3-ish missile was already outdated at the time (~2006).

Hardly. They're still buying subsonic Tomahawks. If those aren't "outdated" I don't see how a Mach 3 missile is.

Because Tomahawk is subsonic and Mach 3 is supersonic. Tomahawk is also in production, and RATTLRS isn't.

It's pretty simple: Speed isn't the only metric of performance that matters for a cruise missile. It's one of the least important, actually, since speed directly impacts the most important quality of a cruise missile: range. While it certainly compounds the problems of local air defense, it only does so to the detriment of literally every other quality of the weapon: range, payload fraction, visibility, and physical size. Which is why the USA has never shown as much interest in a supersonic cruise missile, but the Soviets sure did!

A supersonic missile just for the same performance of Tomahawk would need to be P-800 sized, both to achieve the range and the warhead payload of BGM-109. That's not fitting in Mark 41, and it doesn't offer much since neither the PRC nor Russian Navy operate large numbers of Aegis-type ships. Then again, for defeating modern air defense ships the USN will probably just combine NGJ or a stand-in jammer with LRASM-A and call it a day. The lower signature of a stealthy, subsonic missile will penetrate air defense better than a lower end supersonic rocket, especially if the PRC gets something comparable to CEC.

The more serious matter is that the entire point of RATTLRS was to test the new fuel efficient engine for Mach 3 application, not to find applications for the engine. There's no way it would evolve to a weapons system for any service

Sure. That's why there were these:

View attachment 654963 View attachment 654964

View attachment 654965 View attachment 654966

And why Lockheed sled-tested submunition release for it here:

View attachment 654967

Computer drawings and a Lockheed funded test run are not serious interest. Well, not for any buyers, but it's serious for the sellers. Considering the defense market has way too many suppliers and way too few buyers, trying to monetize anything and everything makes sense.

since at the time they were already looking at X-51, and various boost-glide weapons, which offered superior performance.

X-51 was NEVER intended to transition into an operational weapon.

Neither was RATTLRS. And yet X-51 is still a more serious contender for a potential operational weapon than RATTLRS. RATTLRS would have been revolutionary in the 1970's, in terms of general performance it probably would be akin to something like a Super Granite, or later Onyx versions.

X-51 would be revolutionary for...today.

The idea of the Mach 3 cruise missile was something invented by Lockheed-Martin and has nothing to do with RATTLRS as a program of record, which was entirely successful in all its intended goals and scopes outside of some Lockheed marketing manager's fever dreams.

Okay. If you say so. Perhaps you could direct us to evidence the RATTLRS program was "entirely successful"?

The part where it finished its flight tests proves it was successful.

If you think success is defined as "builds a rocket to bomb people" your view of what defines success is unreasonably narrow: RATTLRS just tested some dumb engine that no one was interested in, as evidenced by the fact that no one has built YJ-102Rs for any application yet, and probably won't in the future.

It flew a couple times and some test data was compiled. That's called "success". Failure is "it never flies and stays in the warehouse" I guess, but even then you'd learn things related to manufacturing at least. Maybe real failure is "CGI pictures" and "surrogate dispenser ground tests", since that tells you nothing substantial, but RATTLRS achieved a fair bit more than either of those.

The ancillary effects of testing the engine, i.e. the high temperature metals and fuel efficiency, were far more important than the design for something of which performance is broadly comparable to a late 1980's missile like P-800.

Again, the main point, which I don't think is controversial, is that it's pretty difficult to believe that anyone in DOD would be interested in a fairly old-fashioned weapon like RATTLRS when they were more interested in funding hypersonics development. Both at the time and in the past prior, and to this very day. But if no one buys a missile for a purpose it was never intended for, as clearly RATTLRS was never going to be made into a cruise missile since no one showed any interest besides the people who built the thing, then why would it be a failure based on criteria it was never judged on? If no one is going to be interested in buying RATTLRS in the first place, Lockheed can try to market all they want but it's falling on deaf ears.

RATTLRS as a weapon was DOA. RATTLRS as a test program for looking at the performance of various ancillary technologies was entirely successful.

This is, what I would assume to be, a wholly non-controversial statement. So I find it a bit perplexing why you're getting hung up on it. Since RATTLRS was never going to be a "Mach 3 cruise missile", which is a very specialized weapon that comes from a very specific sort of combination of target characteristics and industrial capability, why mention it at all?

The point of RATTLRS at the end of the day was flight testing an experimental engine in a cheap chassis. While I'm sure the guys doing the flight tests might have wanted it to faster, they were at least anticipating Mach 3, ideally better, performance. They got that. So where is the failure? It was a mediocre success, perhaps, but the idea that RATTLRS could fly at Mach 4 or whatever was a bit silly to begin with. Either way, it succeeded at everything it set out to do at minimum. Perhaps a bit more, depending on how much YJ-102R's metallurgical research was used in later programs.

It might not have achieved much if you use Lockheed's metric of success I suppose, but Lockheed isn't exactly a paragon of good military sense.

 

[mkellytx]

The previous two errors were acknowledged to be human error it test prep, not in the test article. That doesn’t inspire confidence, especially given a third failure of some undetermined type that definitely resulted in the vehicle never even separating (again).

It's super disappointing to see stuff like this about my former squadron, particularly since the Sq/CC last mentioned in the news is a friend from ROTC and a TPS grad join while I was in the squadron. It makes me wonder how much of this is a lack of understanding of test conduct, versus clickbait drive traffic. All of this to say it isn't necessarily a weapons fail if all of the support assets aren't available, but I digress. If I was the test conductor on seat I wouldn't hesitate to call kings X if the support assets available weren't sufficient to collect the data needed from the test.

Nobody is immune from making mistakes. And refusing to acknowledge that will only ensure they continue to make them.

@sferrin No need to lecture me about mistakes, I've watched an accident aircraft takeoff that deprived three young boys their father. Ten days later my squadron was denied a TPS stud who's only alive because two NASA employees saw his parachute when they returned from lunch in Cal City. Also, I've nearly killed myself flight testing aircraft. Most certainly I am not in denial. Given all of the above, don't ascribe denial to disappointment. Furthermore, so much is left unsaid that I withhold my judgement since the information I would use to make a decision is not public. There's nuance to test conduct that click bait authors like David Axe and the like don't get, all they care about are getting views to boost their revenues.

 

[sferrin]

The previous two errors were acknowledged to be human error it test prep, not in the test article. That doesn’t inspire confidence, especially given a third failure of some undetermined type that definitely resulted in the vehicle never even separating (again).

It's super disappointing to see stuff like this about my former squadron, particularly since the Sq/CC last mentioned in the news is a friend from ROTC and a TPS grad join while I was in the squadron. It makes me wonder how much of this is a lack of understanding of test conduct, versus clickbait drive traffic. All of this to say it isn't necessarily a weapons fail if all of the support assets aren't available, but I digress. If I was the test conductor on seat I wouldn't hesitate to call kings X if the support assets available weren't sufficient to collect the data needed from the test.

Nobody is immune from making mistakes. And refusing to acknowledge that will only ensure they continue to make them.

@sferrin No need to lecture me about mistakes, I've watched an accident aircraft takeoff that deprived three young boys their father. Ten days later my squadron was denied a TPS stud who's only alive because two NASA employees saw his parachute when they returned from lunch in Cal City. Also, I've nearly killed myself flight testing aircraft. Most certainly I am not in denial. Given all of the above, don't ascribe denial to disappointment. Furthermore, so much is left unsaid that I withhold my judgement since the information I would use to make a decision is not public. There's nuance to test conduct that click bait authors like David Axe and the like don't get, all they care about are getting views to boost their revenues.

And I get not blowing things out of proportion. That said, there are bone head mistakes that need to be called what they are. Not every mistake is because you flamed out at Mach 2, and conditions were mostly out of your control.

 

[sferrin]

It's a minor point regardless, since I was intending to illustrate that the thinking behind a Mach 3-ish missile was already outdated at the time (~2006).

Hardly. They're still buying subsonic Tomahawks. If those aren't "outdated" I don't see how a Mach 3 missile is.

Because Tomahawk is subsonic and Mach 3 is supersonic. Tomahawk is also in production, and RATTLRS isn't.

Mach 3 was outdated in 2006 but Tomahawk isn't in 2021 because it's subsonic? Uhm, okay. With quality like that I think I've found a new person for my ignore list.