US Hypersonics - Prompt Global Strike Capability

Grey Havoc said:
Unfortunately the KEP warhead doesn't use that fuze; it's only an option AFAIK with the Block IVA unitary warhead & isn't supposed to enter service anyway until 2018 at the earliest. The KEP warhead would also likely be incompatible with the proposed (primarily anti-ship) active sensor, as that is being specifically modified with the Block IVA unitary warhead in mind and anyhow is still in early development with no deployment date mooted as of yet.

KEP was designed to be a as fuze agnostic as possible since it was envisioned as being deployed on many platforms but was designed from the beginning
to vary its dispersion radius with a selectable heigh-of-burst i.e. one of the major features provided by the ATACMS proximity sensor.

The prox sensor is scheduled for 1QFY2018 , just a few months away, assuming that the final qualification tests in July go well.

There's nothing physically preventing KEP from being compatible with the active sensor and a delay fuze for ATACMS has already been developed



Grey Havoc said:
As for reprogramming the warhead inflight, the Block IVA missile unlike some previous ATACMS variants does not have a datalink of any description. Therefore you would be limited to selecting and loading a pre-programmed template prior to launch.

No one was suggesting reprogramming in flight. You've got rapid trajectory and fuze setting through the existing fire control interface and a very short time of flight.
They've gotten very quick a deconflicting for ATACMS.


Grey Havoc said:
With regards as to C-RAM type systems and various APS, the former has never really been tested against submunitions primarily due to budget (and, in some places, political) constraints, and what tests are known to have involved the latter apparently have had mixed results. If a C-RAM or APS can't successfully engage their carriers (e.g. artillery shells or mortar rounds) before separation, submunitions are highly liable to ruin one's day.

The hard kill efforts against UAVs will naturally eat into whatever survivabiity margins submuntions have left.
Heck, the Army's new light truck can mount an autocannon capable of firing 30mm proximity fuzed rounds (which should finish qualification testing next year).
 
http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2017/04/us-army-exploring-devastating-new-weapon-event-war-russia/136943/
 
Lawmakers cut $20M from DOD's CPGS request, citing 'schedule slip'


Appropriators have cut $20 million in funding for the conventional prompt global strike capability development program, citing a "schedule slip."

An omnibus fiscal year 2017 appropriations bill Congress is expected to pass this week would provide $161.3 million for the CPGS program, which is designed to strike targets anywhere in the world in under an hour using non-nuclear weapons. The Pentagon requested $181.3 million.

House appropriators had initially provided the full amount the Defense Department requested, while Senate appropriators cut that amount by $80 million.

Hypersonic weapons, which can fly more than five times the speed of sound, are intended to provide a long-range, rapid, precise capability for destroying high-risk targets that appear only briefly or are heavily guarded. Such weapons would evade enemy defenses in anti-access and area-denial threat environments.

The Pentagon, seeking to intensify CPGS testing, has more than doubled spending for the program, requesting $181.3 million in FY-17, up from the $78.8 million sought in FY-16. Lawmakers ultimately provided $88.8 million for the program in FY-16.

A majority of the proposed FY-17 spending -- $174 million -- is slated for a subprogram to "test and evaluate alternative booster and delivery vehicle options and will assess the feasibility of producing an affordable solution to fill the CPGS capability gap," according to DOD budget justification materials.

Plans for FY-17 include finalizing the building and testing of the hypersonic glide body and booster to be used in "flight experiment 1," budget justification documents state. The Pentagon is also looking toward "flight experiment 2," scheduled to take place in FY-19.
 
bring_it_on said:
Lawmakers cut $20M from DOD's CPGS request, citing 'schedule slip'


Appropriators have cut $20 million in funding for the conventional prompt global strike capability development program, citing a "schedule slip."

An omnibus fiscal year 2017 appropriations bill Congress is expected to pass this week would provide $161.3 million for the CPGS program, which is designed to strike targets anywhere in the world in under an hour using non-nuclear weapons. The Pentagon requested $181.3 million.

House appropriators had initially provided the full amount the Defense Department requested, while Senate appropriators cut that amount by $80 million.

Hypersonic weapons, which can fly more than five times the speed of sound, are intended to provide a long-range, rapid, precise capability for destroying high-risk targets that appear only briefly or are heavily guarded. Such weapons would evade enemy defenses in anti-access and area-denial threat environments.

The Pentagon, seeking to intensify CPGS testing, has more than doubled spending for the program, requesting $181.3 million in FY-17, up from the $78.8 million sought in FY-16. Lawmakers ultimately provided $88.8 million for the program in FY-16.

A majority of the proposed FY-17 spending -- $174 million -- is slated for a subprogram to "test and evaluate alternative booster and delivery vehicle options and will assess the feasibility of producing an affordable solution to fill the CPGS capability gap," according to DOD budget justification materials.

Plans for FY-17 include finalizing the building and testing of the hypersonic glide body and booster to be used in "flight experiment 1," budget justification documents state. The Pentagon is also looking toward "flight experiment 2," scheduled to take place in FY-19.
This should be a huge R&D program funded in the billions is the DOD/Congress blind to what Russia/China are pursuing?
 
There are other Hypersonic programs in the R&D portfolio. Both HAWC and TBG are well funded with their demonstration phase expected soon.
 
Speed Demons

Senior Air Force leaders met May 3 to discuss ways to speed up the service's hypersonics research and development, the service said May 9. The conversation led to a "common understanding of the potential for hypersonics as a future operational game changer," the Air Force said. Chief Scientist Greg Zacharias added it "laid the groundwork for a longer-term coordinated effort in policy, operational concepts, science and technology efforts, acquisition and test and evaluation." Hypersonic capabilities are being considered for a high-speed cruise missile; intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft and more. A service spokeswoman said May 9 details will be available after the fiscal year 2018 budget is revealed.
 
The conversation led to a "common understanding of the potential for hypersonics as a future operational game changer,"

One would have thought they'd have arrived at this conclusion decades ago.
 
sferrin said:
The conversation led to a "common understanding of the potential for hypersonics as a future operational game changer,"

One would have thought they'd have arrived at this conclusion decades ago.
Absolutely it is very disconcerting when year after year there seems to be story after story that kind of says, "Hey what about this hypersonics thing we should try it" these guys should become members at SPF and start reading.
 
DOD hypersonic weapon effort now called Conventional Prompt Strike, part of new 'TSTEW'


The Pentagon has formally changed the name of its marquee effort to develop a long-range, hypersonic weapon, eliminating "global" from what used to be called the Conventional Prompt Global Strike program -- a rebranding that comes as the top brass have refined the underlying requirement for a high-speed, boost-glide weapon.

Defense Department leaders are refining their vision for what is now called Conventional Prompt Strike, establishing a broader framework for capabilities the U.S. military needs to hit critical targets on short notice called Time-Sensitive Target Engagement Weapons (TSTEW), according to a Joint Staff official.

The Joint Requirements Oversight Council -- led by Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Paul Selva -- convened on Sept. 27, 2016 to review matters, including the need for a hypersonic strike weapon, Joint Staff spokeswoman Maj. Lisa Lawrence told Inside Defense.

"TSTEW serves as the new umbrella term that encompasses the capability requirements," Lawrence said in an email statement of the JROC meeting last fall. "The resultant classified JROC memorandum reiterated the validity of the previously approved PGS ICD and provided updated guidance for further analysis of the topic,” she added, using DOD's acronym for Prompt Global Strike initial capability document.

Since 2003, the Defense Department has explored a range of options for giving commanders new ways to strike high-value, time-sensitive targets -- from terrorists to weapons of mass destruction to anti-satellite weapons -- anywhere on the planet in about an hour. DOD officials believe such a capability would allow the United States to go after very important targets without resorting to nuclear weapons and provide “precision and responsiveness” in anti-access, area-denial environments, while simultaneously minimizing unintended military, political, environmental, economic or cultural consequences.

In 2013, the JROC validated the requirement for a hypersonic weapon, directing that the program now called Conventional Prompt Strike focus on demonstrating the feasibility of a hypersonic, boost-glide weapon for a potential intermediate-range strike system that could be deployed "independent of service of basing/platform," according to DOD.

Conventional Prompt Strike, according to Lawrence, is "just one part of a larger 'Family of Systems' the DOD is exploring to address this warfighting challenge."

The Conventional Prompt Strike program aims to produce results to support a milestone A decision by the end of fiscal year 2020, a move that would formally begin an acquisition program of record to field a hypersonic capability.

Cmdr. Patrick Evans, a spokesman for the Conventional Prompt Strike project in the Pentagon's acquisition directorate for strategic warfare, told Inside Defense the new name for the project replaces the "previously named Conventional Prompt Global Strike."

A major test event planned for this year is back on track after an unnamed issue threatened to delay the test, according to Evans. Congress cut $20 million from the Pentagon's $181 million request for what is now the Conventional Prompt Strike program in DOD's portion of the Fiscal Year 2017 omnibus spending bill, citing a "schedule slip."

"The issues that caused the referenced delay, which occurred in February 2016, have been resolved, and [Flight Experiment]-1 remains on track for a flight test in 2017," Evans said.

In 2011, the Army -- which was commissioned to work on a hypersonic capability as a hedge against failure of an Air Force hypersonic weapon project -- successfully demonstrated an Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, a so-called boost-glide system that paired a three-stage rocket with a cone-shaped hypersonic glide vehicle.

The AHW was designed to launch along a trajectory different than that of a ballistic missile, never leaving the atmosphere. It released a cone-shaped glide vehicle designed by Sandia National Laboratories to travel at hypersonic speeds, defined as at least five times the speed of sound or at least 3,600 miles per hour.

During a planned second flight test of the AHW in 2014, however, a problem unrelated to the warhead prompted officials to abort the mission seconds after takeoff. The Pentagon's acquisition directorate for strategic warfare then tapped the Navy to conduct the next test flight by modifying the Army-developed Advanced Hypersonic Weapon to fit in a submarine missile tube and launch the prototype weapon from a land-based test facility.

That event -- FE-1 -- will demonstrate advanced avionics, miniaturization of subsystems, manufacturability and guidance algorithms, according to DOD. The component miniaturization is supposed to support accommodation of a hypersonic glide body that could be deployed on land, sea or air platforms, DOD officials have testified.

"To date, the national team has successfully demonstrated applicable components and subsystems through a series of ground and flight experiments," Evans said. "The next major system-level technology demonstration is Flight Experiment-1 (FE-1). The FE-1 technology demonstration will build on lessons learned from the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon flight demonstrations: FT-1A (2011) and FT-2 (2014)."

Evans said the Conventional Prompt Strike program was established to conduct risk-reduction efforts supporting development and demonstration of technologies and applications that advance conventional prompt strike warfighting capabilities.

"The program utilizes a national team approach with active participation from all services, national laboratories, and industry," the Pentagon spokesman said. "The program's emphasis is on demonstrating component and subsystem technology maturity with risk reduction initiatives culminating in operationally relevant fight tests. The program funds the design, development, and experimentation of boosters, payload delivery vehicles, conventional warheads, thermal protection systems, guidance systems, test range modernization, and mission planning and enabling capabilities."

China and Russia are actively working to also develop a hypersonic capability, flight testing the DF-FZ and 3K22 Tsirkon systems respectively, according to a DOD official.

The JROC last year assured the heads of U.S. European and Pacific commands, who are watching China and Russia routinely flight test high-speed weapons, that "certain" hypersonic strike capabilities would be fielded within the FY-17 to FY-22 future years defense plan.
 
"Congress cut $20 million from the Pentagon's $181 million request for what is now the Conventional Prompt Strike program in DOD's portion of the Fiscal Year 2017 omnibus spending bill, citing a "schedule slip.""

I wonder if the $20 million cut is because the program isn't in a position to NEED that $20 million yet, or if it's punishment for the slip. If the latter that seems completely retarded. "Since your job was so tough you slipped schedule we're going to help you by cutting your resources. That should fix things."
 
Probably a schedule slip and not requiring that money in the said FY.
 
Skunk Works Hints At SR-72 Demonstrator Progress

DENVER, Colorado—Four years after revealing plans to develop a Mach 6 strike and reconnaissance aircraft, Lockheed Martin says hypersonic technologies are now sufficiently mature to enable progress towards a flight ...

http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/skunk-works-hints-sr-72-demonstrator-progress

However, Weiss hints that work on a combined cycle propulsion system and other key advances needed for a viable hypersonic vehicle are reaching readiness levels sufficient for incorporation into some form of demonstrator. Following critical ground demonstrator tests from 2013 through 2017, Lockheed Martin is believed to be on track to begin development of an optionally piloted flight research vehicle (FRV) starting as early as next year. The FRV is expected to be around the same size as an F-22 and powered by a full-scale, combined cycle engine.

“The combined cycle work is still occurring and obviously a big breakthrough in the air-breathing side of hypersonics is the propulsion system,” Weiss adds. “So this is not just on combined cycle but on other elements of propulsion system.”
The technology of the “air breather has been matured and work is continuing on those capabilities to demonstrate that they are ready to go and be fielded,” he adds.

Isn't even a demonstrator testing round Area 51 going to be noticeable reaching hypersonic velocities?
 
Flyaway said:
Isn't even a demonstrator testing round Area 51 going to be noticeable reaching hypersonic velocities?

Why would it be?
 
sferrin said:
Flyaway said:
Isn't even a demonstrator testing round Area 51 going to be noticeable reaching hypersonic velocities?

Why would it be?

Wouldn't this kind of engine have a distinctive noise signature and also doesn't travelling through the atmosphere at hypersonic velocities have a noticeable noise signature?
 
Flyaway said:
Wouldn't this kind of engine have a distinctive noise signature and also doesn't travelling through the atmosphere at hypersonic velocities have a noticeable noise signature?

Why would either have distinctive noise signatures other than, "loud"? And if it's in the middle of BFE, which it would be, "loud" wouldn't matter. It wouldn't be flying at Mach 6 down low, but pretty high up, so even the noise wouldn't necessarily be noticeable.
 
sferrin said:
Flyaway said:
Wouldn't this kind of engine have a distinctive noise signature and also doesn't travelling through the atmosphere at hypersonic velocities have a noticeable noise signature?

Why would either have distinctive noise signatures other than, "loud"? And if it's in the middle of BFE, which it would be, "loud" wouldn't matter. It wouldn't be flying at Mach 6 down low, but pretty high up, so even the noise wouldn't necessarily be noticeable.

Good points. Perhaps a better way of expressing the point would be that though the Area 51 airspace is large a vehicle travelling at such high speeds is likely to perhaps need to travel outside even this large an area and loud would be noted. After all we know the fuss that can be whenever a conventional fighter sustaines high (supersonic) speeds outside designated areas. I don't know if it is so much the issue in the US as it's so much the larger country but here in the UK whenever an aircraft has to go supersonic near a populated area every man and his dog is onto the authorities wanting to know what's going on.

Would the FRV likely be achieving the Mach 6 they are touting for the final vehicle or utilising lesser speeds?
 
Make of this what you will. Blog by Tyler Rogoway concerning the latest SR-72 news.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/11270/whats-the-deal-with-lockheeds-gabbing-about-the-secretive-hypersonic-sr-72
 
As quellish used to tell us, look for the infrastructure -- fuel, logistics, downrange support. If that doesn't exist, there is no operational or near-operational program.
 
Flyaway said:
Make of this what you will. Blog by Tyler Rogoway concerning the latest SR-72 news.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/11270/whats-the-deal-with-lockheeds-gabbing-about-the-secretive-hypersonic-sr-72

"Tyler Rogoway". . . ::)
 
I don't understand why they can't reach the more obvious conclusion: there is no government SR-72 program, and LM is only talking so much about it because they're trying to convince someone to start one.
 
TomS said:
I don't understand why they can't reach the more obvious conclusion: there is no government SR-72 program, and LM is only talking so much about it because they're trying to convince someone to start one.

I really can't see a company like LM taking the time & money they've obviously used on this so far unless someone was paying them to do it. You only have to look at their history to know this.
 
TomS said:
I don't understand why they can't reach the more obvious conclusion: there is no government SR-72 program, and LM is only talking so much about it because they're trying to convince someone to start one.
The difference I see in this article (and it is only one article) is that LM seems to be discussing more specifics and more concrete timelines than other articles I've read. Pure speculation on my part here.
 
Flyaway said:
sferrin said:
Flyaway said:
Isn't even a demonstrator testing round Area 51 going to be noticeable reaching hypersonic velocities?

Why would it be?

Wouldn't this kind of engine have a distinctive noise signature and also doesn't travelling through the atmosphere at hypersonic velocities have a noticeable noise signature?

It will be from 16 to 22 miles overhead. You are going to hear a serious boom. Just look at the N wave overpressure tests they've done with the SR71.


They likely tested something interesting in 1991 that was captured on seismic sensors, remember? Any new tests are going to be over water.

...one of the seismologists, Jim Mori, noted: "We can't tell anything about the vehicle. They seem stronger than other sonic booms that we record once in a while. They've all come on Thursday mornings about the same time, between 4 and 7." Former NASA sonic boom expert Dom Maglieri studied the 15-year-old sonic boom data from the California Institute of Technology and has deemed that the data showed "something at 90,000 ft (c. 27 km), Mach 4 to Mach 5.2". He also said the booms did not look like those from aircraft that had traveled through the atmosphere many miles away at Los Angeles International Airport, rather, they appeared to be booms from a high-altitude aircraft directly above the ground moving at high speeds


The next question would be, could the SR72 perform some kind of skipping maneuver off the atmosphere that lets it get to a high enough altitude to suppress the boom while over an area of interest?
 
sublight is back said:
Flyaway said:
sferrin said:
Flyaway said:
Isn't even a demonstrator testing round Area 51 going to be noticeable reaching hypersonic velocities?

Why would it be?

Wouldn't this kind of engine have a distinctive noise signature and also doesn't travelling through the atmosphere at hypersonic velocities have a noticeable noise signature?

It will be from 16 to 22 miles overhead. You are going to hear a serious boom. Just look at the N wave overpressure tests they've done with the SR71.


They likely tested something interesting in 1991 that was captured on seismic sensors, remember? Any new tests are going to be over water.

...one of the seismologists, Jim Mori, noted: "We can't tell anything about the vehicle. They seem stronger than other sonic booms that we record once in a while. They've all come on Thursday mornings about the same time, between 4 and 7." Former NASA sonic boom expert Dom Maglieri studied the 15-year-old sonic boom data from the California Institute of Technology and has deemed that the data showed "something at 90,000 ft (c. 27 km), Mach 4 to Mach 5.2". He also said the booms did not look like those from aircraft that had traveled through the atmosphere many miles away at Los Angeles International Airport, rather, they appeared to be booms from a high-altitude aircraft directly above the ground moving at high speeds


The next question would be, could the SR72 perform some kind of skipping maneuver off the atmosphere that lets it get to a high enough altitude to suppress the boom while over an area of interest?

There has been speculation before that the SR72 will have waveriding capability.
 
sublight is back said:
...one of the seismologists, Jim Mori, noted: "We can't tell anything about the vehicle. They seem stronger than other sonic booms that we record once in a while. They've all come on Thursday mornings about the same time, between 4 and 7." Former NASA sonic boom expert Dom Maglieri studied the 15-year-old sonic boom data from the California Institute of Technology and has deemed that the data showed "something at 90,000 ft (c. 27 km), Mach 4 to Mach 5.2". He also said the booms did not look like those from aircraft that had traveled through the atmosphere many miles away at Los Angeles International Airport, rather, they appeared to be booms from a high-altitude aircraft directly above the ground moving at high speeds[/size]

The actual scholarship on this front showed the mystery booms to be offshore and supersonic.

"Seismic detection of sonic booms"
Joseph E. Cates and Bradford Sturtevant
Journal of Acoustical Society of America 2002.
 

Attachments

  • CATjasa02.pdf
    355.3 KB · Views: 19

The actual scholarship on this front showed the mystery booms to be offshore and supersonic.


Well, they'd hardly be subsonic.
 
LowObservable said:

The actual scholarship on this front showed the mystery booms to be offshore and supersonic.


Well, they'd hardly be subsonic.

In contradistinction to onshore and hypersonic.
 
I don't know why LM don't partner with REL on the engine technology for the SR-72.

If you get the latest issue of Spaceflight magazine it has an overview of developments at REL and makes a brief mention of this kind of application.
 
marauder2048 said:
"Seismic detection of sonic booms"
Joseph E. Cates and Bradford Sturtevant
Journal of Acoustical Society of America 2002.

Very interesting paper. One might conclude the SR-72 would not be a good reconnaissance platform because of the inability to predict or control the accompanying sonic greeting card.
 
marauder2048 said:
The actual scholarship on this front showed the mystery booms to be offshore and supersonic.

"Seismic detection of sonic booms"
Joseph E. Cates and Bradford Sturtevant
Journal of Acoustical Society of America 2002.

"An attempt to associate the mystery booms with specific flight operations from any of the local military bases has been unsuccessful. Local military bases reported no unusual activity on the dates of the mystery booms; in particular, the Pacific Missile Test Range, which operates offshore from Point Mugu, reported no supersonic flight operations on the mornings of the October 1991 or January 1992 events."
 
That may well be the reason for program delay. Apart from the handover from optionally manned or unmanned concepts, they are most likely held up by signature reduction and survivability.

Any high Mach engine will mean high altitude unless they've made some amazing advances in fluid dynamics, understanding and reducing sonic/IR/Radar signature reduction is probably going to be one of the key hold ups. Especially true for an ISR or ISTAR/strike aircraft. You essentially have a big loud IR beacon in the the sky over what will likely be the most heavily contested areas on earth in a period of DEW. They have enough trouble keeping and maintaining RAM on Mach 2, (relatively) well proven platforms. Imagine trying to roll out a fleet with lower signatures all round that has to operate at all altitudes, extremely high temperatures and at the edge of space.

Getting a manned hypersonic aircraft to simply fly with a RAM coating is something Skunk Works and others could probably have (possibly did with x-24c) achieved long ago.

Curious to see if the engine technology will have anything to do with US purchasing SABRE engine technology from REL as discussed here. A combined cycle engine does seem to fit the bill of what's being discussed. The USM (or maybe DARPA? forget) has a contract with them for technical data transfer at least and I don't know of any other better pre-cooler technology to enable air breathers not to have to carry L02 at altitudes required to avoid serious heat stress on skins and structures inside the atmosphere.

I still think NRO and DIA will win out on this part of the ISR chain for PGS even if they integrate new UAVs and legacy platforms with new sensors and pods. Don't forget that the Dragon Lady is still out there.


*Digging out my hard copy of "UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES IN THE UNITED STATES ARMED SERVICES*" to do some revision on this if anyone wants anything out of it now would be a time to ask. If I remember correctly proto PGS style kill chain concepts were discussed in there through AARS and the tier and RQ series.*
 
quellish said:
marauder2048 said:
The actual scholarship on this front showed the mystery booms to be offshore and supersonic.

"Seismic detection of sonic booms"
Joseph E. Cates and Bradford Sturtevant
Journal of Acoustical Society of America 2002.

"An attempt to associate the mystery booms with specific flight operations from any of the local military bases has been unsuccessful. Local military bases reported no unusual activity on the dates of the mystery booms; in particular, the Pacific Missile Test Range, which operates offshore from Point Mugu, reported no supersonic flight operations on the mornings of the October 1991 or January 1992 events."

So either a cover-up of a platform with rather mundane performance being tested offshore or a screw-up i.e. inadequate search/incomplete records.
 
phrenzy said:
Curious to see if the engine technology will have anything to do with US purchasing SABRE engine technology from REL as discussed here. A combined cycle engine does seem to fit the bill of what's being discussed. The USM (or maybe DARPA? forget) has a contract with them for technical data transfer at least and I don't know of any other better pre-cooler technology to enable air breathers not to have to carry L02 at altitudes required to avoid serious heat stress on skins and structures inside the atmosphere.

There is a strong preference for hydrocarbon fueled DMRJs. Heat pipes with sodium or lithium as a working fluid should be fine for the altitudes they are talking about.
 

Attachments

  • nasa-glenn-dmrj.png
    nasa-glenn-dmrj.png
    429 KB · Views: 270
http://www.popsci.com/hypersonic-arms-race-china-united-states
 
http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show-2017/raytheon-invests-technology-meet-hypersonic-threats

Hinting at the existence of other, classified, hypersonic weapon development efforts, he adds that Raytheon is active in a large number of programs, “99% of which we can’t talk about today. But in the last five years the air force has been proactively involved, as have the navy and army. In our case, we leverage Raytheon’s experience across many programs, and the assets are combined for different purposes.”
 
bobbymike said:
http://aviationweek.com/paris-air-show-2017/raytheon-invests-technology-meet-hypersonic-threats

Hinting at the existence of other, classified, hypersonic weapon development efforts, he adds that Raytheon is active in a large number of programs, “99% of which we can’t talk about today. But in the last five years the air force has been proactively involved, as have the navy and army. In our case, we leverage Raytheon’s experience across many programs, and the assets are combined for different purposes.”

Great find, thank you for posting Bobbymike
 
PGS before it was PGS, have the whole paper, can look electronically if anyone wants, some very very very interesting concepts and citations I've never heard of
Dated Nov. 96.

Before I start, can someone give me a primer on S3>PGS?
And
Has anyone heard of Black Horse? I have a reference to a paper/concept I will track down, manned hypersonic space plane concept "F-16 sized"

Looking for the paper on BLACK HORSE info in "An Examination of the Feasibility of Winged SSTO Vehicles Utilising Arial Propellant Transfer" AIAA 94-2923, 30TH Joint AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Indianapolis IN, June 94.

Should be able to find it but if someone has it hanging around...

This paper describes a near term Mach 12 named hypersonic and hypersonics stand off cruise missiles for very short response time to strike anywhere on earth and the Mach 12 aircraft as a launch platform for a TAV amongst many other interesting things.

Just a first page as a start, when I'm finished reading I'll highlight the best things and post the link.
IMG_20170626_140039.jpg


I'd be curious to know how many of the contributors turn up on PGS papers, if anyone recognises makes to file up on I'd be greatful. There's a clear proto PGS system described here and solid links on actual hypersonics research I can access program by program and paper by paper. And this is just the first of many I have.

I'll update on this paper and others as I read them. Although I have hard copies with and a little digging I can find the original AIAA links to avoid copyright issues.


*Edit*more images of the vehicle concepts for your who can't or won't download the actual paper. The more I read, if the sieves give blue info S3, even the individual concepts within might deserve their own unbuilt threads.


IMG_20170626_144518.jpg

IMG_20170626_144540.jpg

IMG_20170626_144545.jpg


My followup post got deleted so I'm still looking for specifics on BLACK HORSE.

In the file I'm looking for any background on SHAAFT (the Mach 12 cruiser), SHIMAC (the hypersonic missile), SCREMAR (the TAV) and the Mach 3 unpiloted flying wing that launches SHAAFT.
 
Here's a PDF of the paper in whole. I think this is PGS through and through but maybe S3 and the systems described deserve their own thread?

Perhaps read and look into it yourself? I have so much to go through


Hope this is interesting to many of you.
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.1996-4580
 
Thanks and thanks for moving it.

Was that from the S3 overall Swift global reach apability? Or just the aircraft systems.

Nobody seems to have posted the article link with the Violette organ overview.

Fascinating near term stuff.

Apologies for any duplication or mistkes, I wasn't aware they things were being moved, I thought I had me an error housing things.

Cheers to the mods and admins.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom