Current US hypersonic weapons projects. (General)

90” is a very long booster, if that’s what the chart is implying. That would make the glider in that image huge. I don’t think the image is to scale or representative.
 
MPBD

An air launched, highly classified hypersonic program.

Two stage rocket （from GD's booster size table, MPBD is 28x 126 size, which may be the fisrt stage size and is simmilar to ARRW size. But MPBD has two stage), second stage motor with TVC acs. Seems like a big strike missile.

Also, development is at least begin from 2018, and still continous now. Raytheon seeked program director through 2022.11-2023.3.

Update:
Raytheon still seeking for MPBD director on 2023/8/30
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20240109-223446.png
    Screenshot_20240109-223446.png
    398.6 KB · Views: 48
  • Screenshot_20240109-223533.png
    Screenshot_20240109-223533.png
    368.2 KB · Views: 30
  • Screenshot_20240109-223632.png
    Screenshot_20240109-223632.png
    563.2 KB · Views: 26
  • Screenshot_20240109-223654.png
    Screenshot_20240109-223654.png
    373.5 KB · Views: 30
  • F3D1ABE3-42B5-4B56-A94E-2D7E7BD21E8B.jpeg
    F3D1ABE3-42B5-4B56-A94E-2D7E7BD21E8B.jpeg
    232.7 KB · Views: 32
  • Screenshot_20240112-123237.png
    Screenshot_20240112-123237.png
    707.5 KB · Views: 14
Last edited:
Any chance this is the now defunct HCSW program? I suppose the fact that there was a program director sought through March 2023 excludes that program. It seems odd there would need to be another boost/glide program on top of ARRW (and HCSW).
 
Lots of little nuggets of information in there.

The specifications of 10.5’ but is that only the second stage as described?

Also the identification of this system being a “strategic weapon” what range might this hint at?
 
bobbymike said:
Lots of little nuggets of information in there.

The specifications of 10.5’ but is that only the second stage as described?

Also the identification of this system being a “strategic weapon” what range might this hint at?
Click to expand...

10.5 ' seems like a relatively short stack. Wasn't ARRW more in the 20' range? Also I thought "strategic" was generally reserved for nuclear weapons, but presumably not in this context. I cannot imagine there is a black nuclear missile program.
 
Josh_TN said:
Any chance this is the now defunct HCSW program? I suppose the fact that there was a program director sought through March 2023 excludes that program. It seems odd there would need to be another boost/glide program on top of ARRW (and HCSW).
Click to expand...
Hcsw contractor is lockheed,not Raytheon
 
bobbymike said:
Lots of little nuggets of information in there.

The specifications of 10.5’ but is that only the second stage as described?

Also the identification of this system being a “strategic weapon” what range might this hint at?
Click to expand...
Where is the 10.5 information? GD booster table describe MPBD as 28 x 126 size, which may refer to the first stage, but i did not found any second stage information.
 
Last edited:
"Strategic" may be personal interpretation.

Ratheon/ NG official hiring information only say MPDB is an air launched hypersonic weapon with second stage rocket featured TVC ACS.
 
TAOG said:
Where is the 10.5 information? GD booster table describe MPBD as 28 x 126 size, which may refer to the first stage, but i did not found any second stage information.
Click to expand...
126” / 12 = 10.5ft. I’m assuming it’s the second stage cause that appears to be what they are specifically working on.

Some of these weapons are called “tactical” so again I am just assuming strategic means something different most likely long range.
 
Last edited:
Is the HALO missile a clean sheet design or the modification of an existing missile?
 
dark sidius said:
What about the SR-72 ? or Mayhem project ?
Click to expand...

Both of those are reusable systems that likely would not make for cost effective disposable platforms. The biggest problem with an X-51/HAWC/HACM solution is the length of the stack. CV weapon elevators are limited to 15 feet. So a simple solid rocket boost to scramjet speed is impractical length wise. An integral booster also will not be possible with the wedge shaped combustion chamber of a waverider. My guess is that some kind of multimode engine (ramjet/scramjet) with a lower ignition speed and a cylindrical combustion chamber allowing for an integrated booster will be used to create a shorter stack. Something like HiFly would probably fit the bill.
 
Josh_TN said:
Both of those are reusable systems that likely would not make for cost effective disposable platforms. The biggest problem with an X-51/HAWC/HACM solution is the length of the stack.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • arrmd (2).jpg
    arrmd (2).jpg
    159.1 KB · Views: 13
  • DARPA ARRMD Options2.jpg
    DARPA ARRMD Options2.jpg
    187.7 KB · Views: 35
It could probably be done, but there are disadvantages to a side by side arrangement. I doubt that is the direction the USN is going for; it still has to be carried by a tactical aircraft.
 
Given Sentinel problems the US should develop a max range IRBM on a mobile launcher that can carry a missile heavy enough to also, oops by accident, carry a single warhead ICBM from conus.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
Interesting takeouts:

1. OASuW-2 (Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare Increment II) - is that just going to be HACM?
2. CPS - sea-launched LRHW?
3. TBG - the warhead for ARRW and LRHW? But range is described as tactical? PrSM warhead for the future?
4. HAWC - longer range version of HACM?
Click to expand...

HALO is the OASuW 2 program. It will definitely have a different requirement and propulsion stack than HACM, because HACMs length makes it incompatible with CV weapon elevators. The USN also likely has very different operational requirements; HACM is not explicitly an anti ship weapon and it remains to be seen if it will have that capability.

CPS and LRHW use the same all up round, optimized for naval underwater launch, so yes.

Tactical Boost Glide was a DARPA program. It uses a winged glider over very long ranges - tactical in this reading just means non nuclear. The glider from this program was adopted for the USAF ARRW program of record. CPS/LRHW use a modified version of the SWERVE biconical glider from the 80s (lower development risk), as did the USAF HCSW program (since canceled). PrSM is not a hypersonic program and has nothing to do with any of the above.

HAWC was a DARPA demonstrator program whose data informed HACM and other projects. It is being continued as MOHAWC. It is not a weapons program, though Raytheon has stated some parts will directly be lifted from it to build HACM.
 
Last edited:
bobbymike said:
Given Sentinel problems the US should develop a max range IRBM on a mobile launcher that can carry a missile heavy enough to also, oops by accident, carry a single warhead ICBM from conus.
Click to expand...

That would be a new ICBM and it would have all of the same infrastructure problems of sentinel. The missile itself is not particularly problematic.
 
Josh_TN said:
Tactical Boost Glide was a DARPA program. It uses a winged glider over very long ranges - tactical in this reading just means non nuclear. The glider from this program was adopted for the USAF ARRW program of record. CPS/LRHW use a modified version of the SWERVE biconical glider from the 80s (lower development risk), as did the USAF HCSW program (since canceled). PrSM is not a hypersonic program and has nothing to do with any of the above.
Click to expand...
So the LRHW/CPS don't even have asymmetric glide vehicles?
 
Forest Green said:
So the LRHW/CPS don't even have asymmetric glide vehicles?
Click to expand...

No, old school cylindrical design to expedite their introduction. Perhaps future generations will adopt a different glider but the AUPs will use a less aerodynamically efficient biconical design with an increased angle of attack. It was probably a sound choice that derisked the programs, along with both services adopting the same AUP customized to the most challenging launch environment (subsurface).
 
Josh_TN said:
That would be a new ICBM and it would have all of the same infrastructure problems of sentinel. The missile itself is not particularly problematic.
Click to expand...
But you’re now avoiding those “infrastructure problems” with a mobile missile.

My tongue in cheek comment notwithstanding and to return to reality, in today’s America forty years after Midgetman, the media and public hysteria around a “mobile nuke” means “it ain’t gonna happen”.
 
bobbymike said:
But you’re now avoiding those “infrastructure problems” with a mobile missile.

My tongue in cheek comment notwithstanding and to return to reality, in today’s America forty years after Midgetman, the media and public hysteria around a “mobile nuke” means “it ain’t gonna happen”.
Click to expand...

Mobile missiles still need bases and communications. All that it means is that you communications must be wireless and thus capable of interception or jamming. The communication system will have to accommodate that. I’m not sure what the exact plan is for Sentinel but MM3 silos are hard wired.

Mobile nukes are a non starter for political and practical reasons already discussed in other threads.
 
Josh_TN said:
Mobile missiles still need bases and communications. All that it means is that you communications must be wireless and thus capable of interception or jamming. The communication system will have to accommodate that. I’m not sure what the exact plan is for Sentinel but MM3 silos are hard wired.

Mobile nukes are a non starter for political and practical reasons already discussed in other threads.
Click to expand...
Yes see the post you quoted.
 
Ronny said:
HACM is actually a lot smaller than expected
View attachment 715917
View attachment 715918
Click to expand...
!!!

I was not expecting to see those rocket dimensions in a manufacturer's advertising document! At least not the strategic ones.



Josh_TN said:
It could probably be done, but there are disadvantages to a side by side arrangement. I doubt that is the direction the USN is going for; it still has to be carried by a tactical aircraft.
Click to expand...
Doubt that it's much wider than a triple ejector rack with 1000lb bombs.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom