US Hypersonics - Prompt Global Strike Capability

[bobbymike]

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2017/6/26/future-weapons-rivals-push-pentagon-to-boost-funding-for-hypersonics-research

 

[phrenzy]

Let's hope they pick a few platforms and stick to it. A little ove too many platforms and we get a a dozen paper airplanes and weapons and nothing to promptly strike anything.

From what I can tell though and from conversations with better versed technical minds than I'm in possession of, it would seem that they have cracked SCRAM engines across a wide portion of the flight envelope. For weddings it's almost Taylor made, for platforms combined RAM/SCRAM with something to inject it into minimum operating environments, whether it be RATO/air drop out just plain jet engines.

 

[bring_it_on]

Hypersonic, Conventional Air-Launched, Strike Weapon
Solicitation Number: FA8682-18-R-0003
Agency: Department of the Air Force
Office: Air Force Materiel Command
Location: AFLCMC/PK - Eglin (Legacy)

The Department of Defense, United States Air Force (USAF), Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC), Air Force Life Cycle Management Center (AFLCMC), Armament Directorate, is currently conducting market research seeking capabilities statements from potential sources, including small businesses (SB), 8(a), HUBZone, Economically Disadvantaged Woman-Owned (EDWOSB), Woman-Owned (WOSB), Service Disabled Veteran Owned (SDVOSB) small business that are capable of accomplishing systems integration of all the elements of a hypersonic, conventional air-launched, strike weapon from existing fighter/bomber aircraft and all respective operations/mission planning and sustainment efforts to include operational safety, suitability, and effectiveness. Qualified vendors must be skilled in design, qualification, component/subsystem testing of the critical elements of the hypersonic missile in representative operational conditions. Qualified vendors must be capable in the following fields: hypersonic aerodynamics, aero-thermal protection systems, solid rocket motors, warhead/missile integration, advanced hypersonic guidance, navigation, and control, and aircraft integration. This new weapon system must be designed and analyzed for rapid development and fielding.

 

[bobbymike]

Let's hope they pick a few platforms and stick to it. A little ove too many platforms and we get a a dozen paper airplanes and weapons and nothing to promptly strike anything.

From what I can tell though and from conversations with better versed technical minds than I'm in possession of, it would seem that they have cracked SCRAM engines across a wide portion of the flight envelope. For weddings it's almost Taylor made, for platforms combined RAM/SCRAM with something to inject it into minimum operating environments, whether it be RATO/air drop out just plain jet engines.

I still think there needs to be intermediate steps to 'air-breathing' SCRAM. Always thought air-breathing to solid rocket would be a good solution. A single use M3.2 turbine with a Roadrunner II type solid rocket front end attached to a warhead. Accelerate to M3, detach, light the solid to M6+.

Somewhat similar to TBG but could be longer ranged.

 

[bring_it_on]

Ryan Helbach, a Hypersonic Research Engineer, holds a flight test model in Hypersonic Combustion Research Cell 22, used to research SCRAM jet technology at the Air Force Research Laboratory at Wright Patterson Air Force Base in Dayton, Ohio, Jul 21, 2016. Helbach is the program lead for AFRL's Intellect to Intellect Exchange (i2i Exchange) which pairs AFRL scientists and engineers with innovative private tech companies and created the AFRL Entrepreneurial Program allowing scientists and engineers to take sabbaticals to pursue outside for-profit goals. (U.S. Air Force photo by J.M. Eddins Jr.)

Lt. Malia Stephens, an aeronautical research engineer, and Alex Maag, an aerospace engineer, both with the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Aerospace Systems Directorate, demonstrate the Hypersonic International Flight Research Experimentation (HIFiRE) to a visitor during the 2017 DoD Lab Day, May 18 at the Pentagon center courtyard. (U.S. Air Force photo/Mikee Huber)

 

[bring_it_on]

USAF asks industry for air-launched hypersonic missile concepts

The US Air Force has started surveying the market for new hypersonic weapons that can be rapidly integrated and fielded on existing combat aircraft.

A “sources sought” notice released by the Air Force Lifecycle Management Center’s armament directorate on 29 June asks for companies to respond to the survey within two weeks.

Urgency is a key criterion in the USAF’s research. “This new weapon system must be designed and analyzed for rapid development and fielding,” the USAF notice says.Moreover, the USAF appears to rule-out hypersonic weapons propelled by air-breathing supersonic combustion ramjets, which remains in the proof-of-concept phase.

Instead, the survey specifies a conventional, air-launched strike weapon powered by solid rocket motors.

The weapon must be able to integrated on “existing fighter/bomber” aircraft, the USAF notice adds.

Depending on the results of the survey, the USAF says, the government will decide whether and how to proceed with a follow-on solicitation. Options include performing a full and open competition or providing a set-aside for a small business, the USAF says.

Hypersonic speed is generally defined as above five times the speed of sound, or Mach 5.0.

The USAF has an inventory of ground-launched ballistic missiles with hypersonic capability, but no known air-launched weapons with such speed.

The US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has funded the Tactical Boost Glide (TBG) programme, which aims to develop a conventional, air-launched, hypersonic strike weapon using solid rocket motors for propulsion.

Last September, DARPA awarded Lockheed Martin a $147 million contract to develop a TBG prototype, with speeds reaching Mach 20 after launching from a Boeing B-52.

The TBG project builds on lessons learned from the DARPA Hypersonic Tactical Vehicle-2 (HTV-2) programme, in which Lockheed built an air-launched weapon that flew for 11min.

 

[bobbymike]

USAF asks industry for air-launched hypersonic missile concepts

The US Air Force has started surveying the market for new hypersonic weapons that can be rapidly integrated and fielded on existing combat aircraft.

A “sources sought” notice released by the Air Force Lifecycle Management Center’s armament directorate on 29 June asks for companies to respond to the survey within two weeks.

Urgency is a key criterion in the USAF’s research. “This new weapon system must be designed and analyzed for rapid development and fielding,” the USAF notice says.Moreover, the USAF appears to rule-out hypersonic weapons propelled by air-breathing supersonic combustion ramjets, which remains in the proof-of-concept phase.

Instead, the survey specifies a conventional, air-launched strike weapon powered by solid rocket motors.

The weapon must be able to integrated on “existing fighter/bomber” aircraft, the USAF notice adds.

Depending on the results of the survey, the USAF says, the government will decide whether and how to proceed with a follow-on solicitation. Options include performing a full and open competition or providing a set-aside for a small business, the USAF says.

Hypersonic speed is generally defined as above five times the speed of sound, or Mach 5.0.

The USAF has an inventory of ground-launched ballistic missiles with hypersonic capability, but no known air-launched weapons with such speed.

The US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has funded the Tactical Boost Glide (TBG) programme, which aims to develop a conventional, air-launched, hypersonic strike weapon using solid rocket motors for propulsion.

Last September, DARPA awarded Lockheed Martin a $147 million contract to develop a TBG prototype, with speeds reaching Mach 20 after launching from a Boeing B-52.

The TBG project builds on lessons learned from the DARPA Hypersonic Tactical Vehicle-2 (HTV-2) programme, in which Lockheed built an air-launched weapon that flew for 11min.

I think I posted five+ years ago a warhead attached to a "Roadrunner II" type solid would make a great hypersonic ready to deploy system.

 

[Airplane]

So, about the size of an F-22 and 6 x the speed of sound? Add in a weapons bay and what is the range of this thing? 200nm? Fuel consumption is going to be tremendous! Something about 65ft long isn't going to carry much fuel like an SR-71 did. Plus a weapons bay to take up more volume. What is the point of this project? Sounds reminiscent of one of the pre-F117 ideas of having a small fighter sized aircraft that would cruise subsonically and bust through Soviet airspace with mach 6 speed and drop a couple bombs.

 

[TomS]

If they build that F-22-sized FRV, it would be a scaled version of a real operational vehicle. Compare HAVE BLUE with the F-117 -- the demonstrator was about a third the size (by weight) of the final product.

 

[Airplane]

If they build that F-22-sized FRV, it would be a scaled version of a real operational vehicle. Compare HAVE BLUE with the F-117 -- the demonstrator was about a third the size (by weight) of the final product.

Why not just do full a scale demonstrator like the ATF program. You will get more out of a full scale test article than a subscale any day of week. We didn't do subscale anything except for the Have Blue, and maybe you could throw in the NASA lifting bodies for the shuttle.

 

[sferrin]

If they build that F-22-sized FRV, it would be a scaled version of a real operational vehicle. Compare HAVE BLUE with the F-117 -- the demonstrator was about a third the size (by weight) of the final product.

Why not just do full a scale demonstrator like the ATF program. You will get more out of a full scale test article than a subscale any day of week. We didn't do subscale anything except for the Have Blue, and maybe you could throw in the NASA lifting bodies for the shuttle.

Subscale so when you have another HyFly/RATTLRS/X-51 fiasco you lose less money. I'd go even smaller and start with a missile. Show me you can do that before wasting the big bucks.

 

[TomS]

If they build that F-22-sized FRV, it would be a scaled version of a real operational vehicle. Compare HAVE BLUE with the F-117 -- the demonstrator was about a third the size (by weight) of the final product.

Why not just do full a scale demonstrator like the ATF program. You will get more out of a full scale test article than a subscale any day of week. We didn't do subscale anything except for the Have Blue, and maybe you could throw in the NASA lifting bodies for the shuttle.

We do lots of subscale testing. Most of it just doesn't get much visibility.

They're talking about a full-size engine, which eliminates the scaling issues there. An operational design might use multiples of the same engine rather than try to scale it up.

 

[DrRansom]

The hypersonic rocket program is interesting, I was always under the impression that tactical boost glide was going to be a Mach 5 interim strike weapon, pending the development of a scramjet cruising missile. Instead, it looks like the TBG became something much faster and.more complex?

The new program is not a good sign, in that it shows the USAF did not pursue a sensible hypersonic weapon approach for several years and now needs a crash program to catch up.

The USA hypersonics has that terrible history, pursue expansive, expensive programs which have high technical risk and high chance of cancellation, but not develop a baseline capability which can grow over time.

For the demonstrator, I think it will have the full sized combined cycle engine, so one engine for a F-22 sized aircraft. That is about the right size, if you think about a SR-71 engine relative to a fighter plane.

 

[bring_it_on]

The USAF Hypersonic-Weapons approach of late has been to support DARPA as the junior partner with each pitching in $600 Million to support both the Tactical Boost Glide, and the HAWC programs exploring the scramjet cruise missile technology. Flight demonstrations for both of those are expected in the FY19-FY21 timeframe after which the projects are going to be transitioning to the AF to follow through. This does appear to be quite a sensible approach and a fairly sizable investment as a follow on to the X-51 program. There is a House Committee amendment out there that gives USAF the control of HAWC in FY18 so things could move a little differently if this eventually becomes a part of the NDAA.

There isn't an air launched Hypersonic missile out there so I don't quite understand what the 'catching up' bit means. The way I read it as is that the USAF thinks that it can take what they have been working on and use a brute force appraoch and field a capability earlier. They seem to be exploring this approach.

The Combined Cycle engine for a hypersonic vehicle test bed is again more long term and likely shares a fairly significant classified investment track.
Again, I fail to see a threat system fielded or even demonstrated that the USAF is playing catch up to.

 

[sferrin]

Again, I fail to see a threat system fielded or even demonstrated that the USAF is playing catch up to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFG-gJcNVGA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EdN0d6743s

And you're right, the USAF isn't keeping up with anybody. Virtually the entire civilized world is running the table on them. Japan, Taiwan, China, India, Russia, hell even North Korea, are developing, and deploying cutting edge weapons. What the last new hypersonic (hell even just supersonic) missile the USAF deployed? Or any US service for that matter? We couldn't even blow the dust off the nearly 40 year old ASALM and get that working. "Too risky."

 

[RyanC]

This is all pretty stupid, when USAF could just issue a contract for SpaceX to provide them with a single Block 5 Falcon 9 airframe for PGSC delivery; and fly it out of CCAFS; there's no chance of a CCAFS launch being mistaken for an ICBM launch.

 

[bring_it_on]

Again, I fail to see a threat system fielded or even demonstrated that the USAF is playing catch up to.

Sfferin, I was specifically referring to an air breathing or boost glide, air launched hypersonic weapon system, something the USAF would be interested in for its aircraft as is reflected in their partnership with DARPA on the HAWC, and TBG and the current posting and survey on a rapidly field able capability. In the part you quoted I was clearly talking about the USAF's interest in a combined cycle engine. But...nice videos

 

[sferrin]

Again, I fail to see a threat system fielded or even demonstrated that the USAF is playing catch up to.

Sfferin, I was specifically referring to an air breathing or boost glide, air launched hypersonic weapon system,

KH-32 (improved AS-4. Rocket powered but basically does what you're looking for.)
Kh-90 Koala
Kh-80 Meteorit


And my point was really that there is a plethora of research, flight testing, and deployment going on in the world, of all kinds of high speed missiles - just not in the US. ASALM was the last US attempt. The failed HyFly, RATTLRS, etc. were never intended as actual weapons. (One would hope anyway, considering how easily they gave up.)

 

[bring_it_on]

How many hypersonic variants of those missiles are operational?

 

[bobbymike]

Again, I fail to see a threat system fielded or even demonstrated that the USAF is playing catch up to.

Sfferin, I was specifically referring to an air breathing or boost glide, air launched hypersonic weapon system,

KH-32 (improved AS-4. Rocket powered but basically does what you're looking for.)
Kh-90 Koala
Kh-80 Meteorit


And my point was really that there is a plethora of research, flight testing, and deployment going on in the world, of all kinds of high speed missiles - just not in the US. ASALM was the last US attempt. The failed HyFly, RATTLRS, etc. were never intended as actual weapons. (One would hope anyway, considering how easily they gave up.)

Back on this thread somewhere I posted a story where some general said, "We could have a hypersonic missile today it would not be air-breathing" So to quote Judge Smails, "Well we're waiting"

 

[sferrin]

How many hypersonic variants of those missiles are operational?

Now you're just moving the goalposts.

"Again, I fail to see a threat system fielded or even demonstrated that the USAF is playing catch up to."

Other countries are testing, testing, testing, and deploying. What's the US doing? By all rights Fasthawk should already be sitting in Mk41 cells across the world.

 

[bring_it_on]

I don't see how one can read my original post and not get that it was specificly aimed at hypersonic weapons and other hypersonic propulsion concepts. I'll try to be even more precise next time.

The USAF Hypersonic-Weapons approach of late has been to support DARPA as the junior partner with each pitching in $600 Million to support both the Tactical Boost Glide, and the HAWC programs exploring the scramjet cruise missile technology. Flight demonstrations for both of those are expected in the FY19-FY21 timeframe after which the projects are going to be transitioning to the AF to follow through. This does appear to be quite a sensible approach and a fairly sizable investment as a follow on to the X-51 program. There is a House Committee amendment out there that gives USAF the control of HAWC in FY18 so things could move a little differently if this eventually becomes a part of the NDAA.

There isn't an air launched Hypersonic missile out there so I don't quite understand what the 'catching up' bit means. The way I read it as is that the USAF thinks that it can take what they have been working on and use a brute force appraoch and field a capability earlier. They seem to be exploring this approach.

The Combined Cycle engine for a hypersonic vehicle test bed is again more long term and likely shares a fairly significant classified investment track.
Again, I fail to see a threat system fielded or even demonstrated that the USAF is playing catch up to.

 

[bobbymike]

How many hypersonic variants of those missiles are operational?

Now you're just moving the goalposts.

"Again, I fail to see a threat system fielded or even demonstrated that the USAF is playing catch up to."

Other countries are testing, testing, testing, and deploying. What's the US doing? By all rights Fasthawk should already be sitting in Mk41 cells across the world.

We should have had the Forward Based Theater Strike Missile, AKA, Sub Launched IRBM with a TBG warhead for years now.

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-148284532.html

June 20, 2006!!! :'(

 

[bring_it_on]

We should have had the Forward Based Theater Strike Missile, AKA, Sub Launched IRBM with a TBG warhead for years now.

With that I agree as I do with the notion that we have not invested in enough high supersonic offensive weapon capability while others have, whether that is on the air-breathing side or sea based Ballistic Missile side. However as things stand, post HyFly and X-51 they did make changes and committed over $1 Billion in R&D on the Hypersonic Portfolio which DARPA and USAF are currently executing with flight tests a couple of years away so all is not lost and there are folks working hard on these programs. There seems to be a shift in the posture and future outlook with the services openly talking about near-peer competition. This after well over a decade of post-Iraq counter insurgency focus.

 

[Airplane]

If they build that F-22-sized FRV, it would be a scaled version of a real operational vehicle. Compare HAVE BLUE with the F-117 -- the demonstrator was about a third the size (by weight) of the final product.

Why not just do full a scale demonstrator like the ATF program. You will get more out of a full scale test article than a subscale any day of week. We didn't do subscale anything except for the Have Blue, and maybe you could throw in the NASA lifting bodies for the shuttle.

We do lots of subscale testing. Most of it just doesn't get much visibility.

They're talking about a full-size engine, which eliminates the scaling issues there. An operational design might use multiples of the same engine rather than try to scale it up.

That makes more sense. I was thinking what a waste of money to develop subscale engines and then re-engineer a larger "real" engine.

Yes I know there is a lot of subscale testing, but none of the white world subscale ever was a proof of concept to be scaled up larger and made operational. All I know is Have Blue and the NASA lifting bodies.

I would love to be proven wrong! And I am not trying to sound cynical!

 

[seruriermarshal]

Current State of High Speed Propulsion: Gaps, Obstacles, and Technological Challenges in Hypersonic Applications

Article · August 2009

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255661852_Current_State_of_High_Speed_Propulsion_Gaps_Obstacles_and_Technological_Challenges_in_Hypersonic_Applications

 

[Flyaway]

Chances of hypersonic travel heat up with new materials discovery

But, at present, even conventional UHTCs can’t currently satisfy the associated ablation requirements of travelling at such extreme speeds and temperatures. However, the researchers at The University of Manchester’s and the Royce Institute, in collaboration with the Central South University of China, have designed and fabricated a new carbide coating that is vastly superior in resisting temperatures up to 3,000 °C, when compared to existing UHTCs.

Professor Philip Withers, Regius Professor from The University of Manchester, says: “Future hypersonic aerospace vehicles offer the potential of a step jump in transit speeds. A hypersonic plane could fly from London to New York in just two hours and would revolutionise both commercial and commuter travel.

“But at present one of the biggest challenges is how to protect critical components such as leading edges, combustors and nose tips so that they survive the severe oxidation and extreme scouring of heat fluxes at such temperatures cause to excess during flight.”

http://www.manchester.ac.uk/discover/news/chances-of-hypersonic-travel-heat-up-with-new-materials-discovery/

 

[Flyaway]

US, Australia conclude secretive hypersonic flight series

The tests were conducted under the auspices of the Hypersonic International Flight Research Experimentation (HiFIRE) programme, says Australia's Department of Defence in a statement.

In the statement, defence minister Marise Payne congratulated Canberra's Defence Science and Technology Group (DST) and the US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) "on another successful hypersonic flight at Woomera test range."

She said that the tests have achieved "significant milestones, including design assembly, and pre-flight testing of the hypersonic vehicles and design of complex avionics and control systems."

She said Canberra and Washington DC are drafting plans for future hypersonic work.

The statement also thanked Boeing, BAE Systems, and the University of Queensland as partners on the programme.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-australia-conclude-secretive-hypersonic-flight-439239/

 

[bobbymike]

From the recently passes NDAA:

Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Funding in NDAA

Chairman Turner included language in the NDAA to allow AFRL to assume oversight and management of the Hypersonic Airbreathing Weapons Concept. AFRL will be tasked with:

Developing a reusable hypersonics test bed to further probe the high speed flight corridor;
Facilitating the testing and development of hypersonic airbreathing weapon systems;
Exploring emerging concepts and technologies for reusable hypersonics weapons systems beyond current hypersonics programs, focused on experimental flight test capabilities; and
Developing defensive technologies and countermeasures against potential and identified hypersonic threats.

 

[bring_it_on]

I believe this was in the HASC version. would be interesting to see whether this is present in the NDAA when it moves up. I had mentioned this earlier but taking control of HAWC from DARPA and giving it to the AF a year or so ahead of flight testing does appear to be strange since the program would have transitioned to the AF after flight testing anyway.

 

[jsport]

From the recently passes NDAA:

Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Funding in NDAA

Chairman Turner included language in the NDAA to allow AFRL to assume oversight and management of the Hypersonic Airbreathing Weapons Concept. AFRL will be tasked with:

Developing a reusable hypersonics test bed to further probe the high speed flight corridor;
Facilitating the testing and development of hypersonic airbreathing weapon systems;
Exploring emerging concepts and technologies for reusable hypersonics weapons systems beyond current hypersonics programs, focused on experimental flight test capabilities; and
Developing defensive technologies and countermeasures against potential and identified hypersonic threats.

So far behind on this
"Developing defensive technologies and countermeasures against potential and identified hypersonic threats."


"The FMC 60 mm electrothermal gun and its Martin
Marietta (formerly GE) guided round small-caliber
smart munition (SCSM) were tested successfully during
1992/93. The SCSM contract was awarded in the
autumn of 1991. The 1.75 kilogram rolling-airframe
steel shell (illustrated in this report) uses a K-band
guidance uplink and an E/F-band telemetry downlink. It
carries a thermal battery and a miniature propulsion
control using a small solid-propellant thruster. Muzzle
velocity is 1.4 kilometers per second (4,260 ft/sec);

SCSM can maneuver at 40g at Mach 4. Like Phalanx,
this weapon kills by impact, not by explosion. Of the
seven saboted projectiles successfully fired at Dahlgren
Naval Base in the second half of 1992, five carried live
gas generators and thermal batteries. The K-band
command link was tested over water at Dahlgren in
February 1993. Tests against airborne targets were
scheduled for late 1994. The gun is an autoloader on a
Phalanx mounting. Firing rate is 4 rounds per second/10
round burst); elevation limits are +40/-5 degrees.
Following a 30-month design and development program,
the first 60 mm ET gun was delivered to the US Navy in
July 1993. Following the completion of final NSWC
acceptance trials, the gun, autoloader and other program
elements – including propellant charges, guided
projectiles and the TASD target acquisition system –
will be integrated during a series of live firings against
airborne targets."

https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_old_pdf.cfm?ARC_ID=1727

 

[seruriermarshal]

HyShot V HIFiRE 4

B)

 

[dark sidius]

"Developing a reusable hypersonics test bed to further probe the high speed flight corridor"may be something to see with the Lockheed FRV demonstrator ?

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1683130-us-australia-fire-hypersonic-weapon

AFRL chief scientists always uses the "around 2040" date for a Strike/ISR platform but news trickles out from Lockheed that they could be ready to fly something much, much sooner (SR-72 thread).

I've always wondered if there is some disinformation here?

 

[dark sidius]

I think so , when we look the HIFIRE 4 it seems that Hypesonic look more Advanced than we think, something with this design but more bigger and launching by something like falcon 9 could have very game changing potential.

 

[Tuomasn]

Can anyone identify the "Tactical Strike/ISR" vehicle in the middle of the attached image (found from https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/us-air-force-hypersonic-weapons-roadmap.html )? Or find the original source for that slide?

It looks a bit like a HiFiRe variant, but on closer look doesn't match any known ones (wings in particular). Also it looks like it has a rocket nozzle in the rear. Isinglass revisited? On the left is clearly the Lockheed HSSW and on the right the Lockheed FRV.

 

[sferrin]

Can anyone identify the "Tactical Strike/ISR" vehicle in the middle of the attached image (found from https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/04/us-air-force-hypersonic-weapons-roadmap.html )? Or find the original source for that slide?

It looks a bit like a HiFiRe variant, but on closer look doesn't match any known ones (wings in particular). Also it looks like it has a rocket nozzle in the rear. Isinglass revisited? On the left is clearly the Lockheed HSSW and on the right the Lockheed FRV.

Weird that they'd say the technology wouldn't be ready until after 2030, a mere half-century after this:

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/hgv.html

 

[bring_it_on]

Air Force plans hypersonic strike weapon contract award for late 2017

The Air Force wants to start work this year to put a hypersonic, conventional strike weapon on fighter and bomber aircraft, according to a July 21 Federal Business Opportunities notice. The service plans to award a contract to one of five companies in the first quarter of fiscal year 2018.

Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and Orbital ATK are the only companies that could meet the Air Force's needs in a reasonable amount of time, the FBO notice states. The service asks for a hypersonic, GPS- and inertially guided strike capability to fire against high-value fixed and moving targets in denied environments. Each weapon would use an undisclosed government-issued warhead.

The development and integration contract will span all work through the engineering and manufacturing development phase, according to FBO. A June 29 FBO post noted the weapon would be flown on existing aircraft and that companies need to design and analyze the new system for rapid fielding.

The Air Force did not respond to questions about the hypersonic strike effort by press time (July 24).

Notice of Contract Action (NOCA) - The Long Range Systems Division (AFLCMC/EBJ) intends to solicit proposals from limited sources and award contracts for the development and integration of an air-launched hypersonic conventional strike weapon (HCSW) with both fighter and bomber aircraft platforms. Integration will include mission planning operations and support. The HCSW will provide a prompt (Hypersonic/Hypervelocity), precision strike capability against high-value, time-critical fixed and relocatable surface targets in a single or multi-theater challenged (A2/AD) environment. It will utilize Global Position System (GPS)/Inertial Guidance System (INS) for navigation and terminal guidance with a Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) warhead. It is anticipated that the contract will be awarded in the 1st quarter of FY18. The contract will include all necessary effort through Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD).


This effort will be awarded using other than full and open competition to the successful offeror under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1), as implemented by FAR 6.302-1 - Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements, among the limited sources. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon Missile Systems, and Orbital ATK (Arizona) are the only firms that appear to possess the necessary capability within the Air Force's time frame without causing an unacceptable delay in meeting the needs of the warfighter.

 

[bring_it_on]

...

 

[bobbymike]

Air Force plans hypersonic strike weapon contract award for late 2017

The Air Force wants to start work this year to put a hypersonic, conventional strike weapon on fighter and bomber aircraft, according to a July 21 Federal Business Opportunities notice. The service plans to award a contract to one of five companies in the first quarter of fiscal year 2018.

Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and Orbital ATK are the only companies that could meet the Air Force's needs in a reasonable amount of time, the FBO notice states. The service asks for a hypersonic, GPS- and inertially guided strike capability to fire against high-value fixed and moving targets in denied environments. Each weapon would use an undisclosed government-issued warhead.

The development and integration contract will span all work through the engineering and manufacturing development phase, according to FBO. A June 29 FBO post noted the weapon would be flown on existing aircraft and that companies need to design and analyze the new system for rapid fielding.

The Air Force did not respond to questions about the hypersonic strike effort by press time (July 24).

Notice of Contract Action (NOCA) - The Long Range Systems Division (AFLCMC/EBJ) intends to solicit proposals from limited sources and award contracts for the development and integration of an air-launched hypersonic conventional strike weapon (HCSW) with both fighter and bomber aircraft platforms. Integration will include mission planning operations and support. The HCSW will provide a prompt (Hypersonic/Hypervelocity), precision strike capability against high-value, time-critical fixed and relocatable surface targets in a single or multi-theater challenged (A2/AD) environment. It will utilize Global Position System (GPS)/Inertial Guidance System (INS) for navigation and terminal guidance with a Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) warhead. It is anticipated that the contract will be awarded in the 1st quarter of FY18. The contract will include all necessary effort through Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD).


This effort will be awarded using other than full and open competition to the successful offeror under the authority of 10 U.S.C. 2304(c)(1), as implemented by FAR 6.302-1 - Only One Responsible Source and No Other Supplies or Services Will Satisfy Agency Requirements, among the limited sources. Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon Missile Systems, and Orbital ATK (Arizona) are the only firms that appear to possess the necessary capability within the Air Force's time frame without causing an unacceptable delay in meeting the needs of the warfighter.

Should be awarding multiple contracts for multiple designs IMHO to maximize competition and invigorate the industrial base for high speed weapons research.