US Hypersonics - Prompt Global Strike Capability

[liaomh]

Hypersonic Materials and Structures talk slides.

why can't search this pdf with Google? this one is a little bit unclear

 

[DSE]

Hypersonic Materials and Structures talk slides.

why can't search this pdf with Google? this one is a little bit unclear

If this isn't up to your personal standards you are free to delete it from your system at any time.

 

[liaomh]

easy man. still thanks ;D

Hypersonic Materials and Structures talk slides.

why can't search this pdf with Google? this one is a little bit unclear

If this isn't up to your personal standards you are free to delete it from your system at any time.

 

[DSE]

easy man.

F.O. Content deleted.

 

[Hot Breath]

^--- THAT'S how you make progress.

The INF treaty has a lot to answer for.

Yes, it ended the Cold War, now didn't it?

 

[Flyaway]

Pulse detonation engine and continuous detonation wave engines.

Various bits & pieces of info.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/06/pulse-detonation-engine-and-continuous.html

 

[sferrin]

Pulse detonation engine and continuous detonation wave engines.

Various bits & pieces of info.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/06/pulse-detonation-engine-and-continuous.html

But will a continuous detonation wave engine meet noise requirements?

 

[Flyaway]

Pulse detonation engine and continuous detonation wave engines.

Various bits & pieces of info.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/06/pulse-detonation-engine-and-continuous.html

But will a continuous detonation wave engine meet noise requirements?

Somebody under the article was claiming that such an engine going a decent speed would generate 200 decibels?

 

[bobbymike]

Russia gets into the act with the Yu-71 hypersonic vehicle;

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-tested-hypersonic-glide-vehicle-in-february/

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/tech/2015/06/25/hypersonic-flight-the-next-frontier-for-the-air-force/29169739/

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-hypersonic-missiles-push-america-china-towards-war-13205

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.ibtimes.com/russias-secret-hypersonic-nuclear-missile-yu-71-can-breach-existing-missile-defense-1987590?rel=most_read1
---------------------------------------------------
Not that my statement was very prescient as Russia (USSR) has been doing this at least since MIRV days, but I said Russia [and China] would scream about US hypersonic weapons, especially to get Western Press writing stories about "Dangerous New Arms Race" (which they have) while pushing full speed ahead with own weapons.

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/will-russia-really-build-24-hypersonic-nuclear-missiles-by-13230

 

[bobbymike]

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/08/russia-yu-71-us-prompt-global-strike.html

 

[bobbymike]

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/08/usa-increasing-hypersonic-weapons.html

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/08/ballistic-missiles-with-tungsten.html

http://www.google.com/patents/US6779462

 

[sferrin]

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/08/usa-increasing-hypersonic-weapons.html

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/08/ballistic-missiles-with-tungsten.html

http://www.google.com/patents/US6779462

Interesting that the HTV-2 program is still alive. Doesn't look like enough to fly another one though. Probably just shuffling data. :'(

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.nationalinterest.org/feature/coming-war-near-you-hypersonic-weapons-13649

 

[sferrin]

http://www.nationalinterest.org/feature/coming-war-near-you-hypersonic-weapons-13649

"The biggest technical challenge is the fact you essentially need two different motors to power the missile: one to get the missile up to supersonic speeds (> Mach 1, or about 750 mph), and another to then take the missile up to hypersonic speeds (> Mach 5, or about 3,750 mph). The kinds of motors that work at lower speeds, such as turbojets and turbofans, will not work at higher speeds, which require scramjet or ramjet motors. "

So. . .just like they myriad of ramjet/ramrocket missiles that have been flying since the early 50s. (I get that scramjets and ramjets are different but, of the roadblocks, the necessity for a separate booster certainly isn't one of them.)

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.nationalinterest.org/feature/coming-war-near-you-hypersonic-weapons-13649

"The biggest technical challenge is the fact you essentially need two different motors to power the missile: one to get the missile up to supersonic speeds (> Mach 1, or about 750 mph), and another to then take the missile up to hypersonic speeds (> Mach 5, or about 3,750 mph). The kinds of motors that work at lower speeds, such as turbojets and turbofans, will not work at higher speeds, which require scramjet or ramjet motors. "

So. . .just like they myriad of ramjet/ramrocket missiles that have been flying since the early 50s. (I get that scramjets and ramjets are different but, of the roadblocks, the necessity for a separate booster certainly isn't one of them.)

I made this comment before but I really don't get why they don't go off the shelf for a M5-7 rocket or ramjet powered BGV or even boost glide - boost near impact while continuing R&D on Scramjets? Mind you I don't know why the US isn't developing a whole family of intermediate range missiles to counter China massive arsenal?

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/china-conducts-fifth-test-of-hypersonic-glide-vehicle/

 

[bobbymike]

And Russia's flouting of the INF Treaty

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-nearing-deployment-of-new-intermediate-range-naval-missile/

 

[sferrin]

And Russia's flouting of the INF Treaty

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-nearing-deployment-of-new-intermediate-range-naval-missile/

Supersonic of course.

 

[bobbymike]

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/08/russia-and-usa-are-closest-to-useful.html

 

[Saturn X]

And Russia's flouting of the INF Treaty

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-nearing-deployment-of-new-intermediate-range-naval-missile/

Someone needs to go back read INF Treaty again :

 

[bobbymike]

http://warisboring.com/articles/americas-far-off-space-weapons-freak-russia-out/

 

[DrRansom]

And Russia's flouting of the INF Treaty

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/russia-nearing-deployment-of-new-intermediate-range-naval-missile/

This is a pretty obvious, in retrospect, way of bypassing the INF treaty while keeping that strategic strike capability. Puts a whole new threat on NATO...

Supersonic speed might make aircraft based cruise missile defense much harder.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.armytimes.com/story/defense/show-daily/ausa/2015/10/12/smdc-boss-we-provide-enemy-lot-problems/73656310/

Q. Can you talk a little bit more about hypersonic and hyperglide technology?

A. What happens is it pulls different maneuvers that exhibit extreme G-forces. By using this technology, you are able to place a warhead basically anyplace in the world in a very short period of time. It goes up. But then it comes down real dramatic. And it basically skims a very low altitude. Then it pops up at the last moment. Then it comes down on its target. It is very hard to target because of the G maneuvers and because of the speeds that we are talking about. Because of the relatively low level of flight in the later stages of flight. The Chinese are really looking heavily at it, as well as Russia; but China is a little bit further along.

Q. What is the Army doing about this threat?

A. Well, I mean, we have our own. In fact, my command had one of the first successes in terms of this type of technology back in November 2011 when we fired a weapon out of Hawaii, a PMRF, a Pacific Missile Range [Facility] complex out there – and shot it towards Kwajalein. A very successful test, and it landed very close to the target on the ground. We developed that technology. Or, we successfully employed that technology in a test.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Two relevant parts interview contains other interesting information.

 

[seruriermarshal]

http://www.armytimes.com/story/defense/show-daily/ausa/2015/10/12/smdc-boss-we-provide-enemy-lot-problems/73656310/

Q. Can you talk a little bit more about hypersonic and hyperglide technology?

A. What happens is it pulls different maneuvers that exhibit extreme G-forces. By using this technology, you are able to place a warhead basically anyplace in the world in a very short period of time. It goes up. But then it comes down real dramatic. And it basically skims a very low altitude. Then it pops up at the last moment. Then it comes down on its target. It is very hard to target because of the G maneuvers and because of the speeds that we are talking about. Because of the relatively low level of flight in the later stages of flight. The Chinese are really looking heavily at it, as well as Russia; but China is a little bit further along.

Q. What is the Army doing about this threat?

A. Well, I mean, we have our own. In fact, my command had one of the first successes in terms of this type of technology back in November 2011 when we fired a weapon out of Hawaii, a PMRF, a Pacific Missile Range [Facility] complex out there – and shot it towards Kwajalein. A very successful test, and it landed very close to the target on the ground. We developed that technology. Or, we successfully employed that technology in a test.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Two relevant parts interview contains other interesting information.

That's AHW

 

[Sentinel36k]

Time critical strike http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA498403.pdf
AIR VEHICLE INTEGRATION AND TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH (AVIATR) (hypersonic) http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a535837.pdf

Sentinel

 

[sferrin]

Document: Report to Congress on U.S. Conventional Prompt Global Strike and Long-Range Ballistic Missiles


The following is the Oct. 2, 2015 Congressional Research Service report Conventional Prompt Global Strike and Long-Range Ballistic Missiles: Background and Issues.


http://news.usni.org/2015/11/04/document-report-to-congress-on-u-s-conventional-prompt-global-strike-and-long-range-ballistic-missiles

 

[Flyaway]

Hypersonic missile developments raise regulatory concerns

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/hypersonic-missile-developments-raise-regulatory-con-418984/

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvVzY4rVDhE

House Armed Services Committee hearing on US and Foreign PGS developments.

 

[bobbymike]

Congress adds $10M for conventional prompt global strike test

Lawmakers have added $10 million to the Defense Department's budget for fiscal year 2016 to test a program designed to strike a target anywhere in the world using non-nuclear weapons.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Headline "President Bobbymike adds $10 billion for production of 25k lbs payload prompt global strike missile, will also replace MMIII by 2030" ;D

 

[sferrin]

$10 million is about a tenth of one test.

 

[liaomh]

$10 million is about a tenth of one test.

actually a twentieth。

 

[sferrin]

$10 million is about a tenth of one test.

actually a twentieth。

In any case $10 million ain't gonna get you far.

 

[bobbymike]

http://aviationweek.com/defense/hypersonics-stay-high-darpa-s-list-2017?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20160224_AW-05_482&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_2&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=5061&utm_medium=email&elq2=8858c738f4a648f29a030b21143bd4b1

With few new-start programs planned, Darpa’s fiscal 2017 budget request is focused on advancing several large demonstrations and transitioning technologies to their intended customers.

A new start for fiscal 2017 is the Advanced Full-Range Engine (AFRE) project to demonstrate the transition from turbojet to dual-mode ramjet for a turbine-base combined-cycle (TBCC) engine. Darpa is seeking $9 million to begin preliminary design.

TBCC propulsion is key to future hypersonic long-range strike, high-speed surveillance and reusable space-access vehicles, and AFRE will conduct a full-scale freejet ground demonstration of mode transition using an off-the-shelf turbine engine.

AFRE appears to pick up where Darpa’s Mode Transition (MoTr) project left off when it was stopped in fiscal 2011 before a turbojet/scramjet TBCC could be ground tested. MoTr was a follow-on to the Facet combined-cycle engine project, which tested a hydrocarbon-fueled Mach 3-6 ram/scramjet.

Under existing Darpa’s high-speed efforts, preliminary design reviews (PDR) for the Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC) project to develop an air-launched long-range strike missile were scheduled for first-quarter fiscal 2016, according to budget documents.

Darpa is seeking $49.5 million to complete the flight-demonstrator critical design review (CDR) in second quarter fiscal 2017 and begin full-scale freejet ground testing of a flight-like hydrocarbon scramjet engine.

With competitive PDRs scheduled for second quarter fiscal 2016, Darpa also is seeking $22.8 million in 2017 for the Tactical Boost Glide (TBG) project to flight test an air-launched, rocket-boosted hypersonic gliding weapon.

A CDR in the fourth quarter and start of assembly for the flight demonstrator is planned for fiscal 2017. TBG is intended for air launch from existing Air Force platforms, and compatibility with the Navy’s vertical launch system.

HAWC and TBG are joint Darpa/Air Force programs, follow-ons to the Air Force Research Laboratory-led Boeing X-51 WaveRider scramjet engine demonstrator. Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon are involved, although Darpa has never confined the competitors.

In other flight demonstrator efforts, the research agency is seeking $50.5 million in fiscal 2017 for the XS-1 experimental spaceplane project. The funding would complete the CDR and begin fabrication of a small reusable launch vehicle that can fly 10 times in 10 days.

 

[bobbymike]

DOD seeks $181M for CPGS program, with flight test planned for FY-17

February 24, 2016


With the goal of testing a system designed to strike worldwide targets in under an hour using non-nuclear weapons, the Pentagon has more than doubled spending for the Conventional Prompt Global Strike capability development program. The Pentagon is seeking $181.3 million for the program in fiscal year 2017, up from the $78.8 million requested in FY-16. Lawmakers ultimately provided $88.8 million for the program. A majority of the proposed FY-17 spending -- $174 million -- is slated to go to a subprogram that will "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 budget justification materials. Plans for the coming fiscal year include finalizing the building and testing of the hypersonic glide body and booster to be used in "flight experiment 1,"
documents state.

The Pentagon is also looking toward "flight experiment 2," slated to take place in FY-19. Related FY-17 plans include continuing "intermediate range objective booster development for [flight experiment 2] with competitive industry; to include hardware procurement and fabrication," according to the documents. 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 plans to spend nearly $1.1 billion over the future years defense plan on the CPGS program, which "funds the design, development and experimentation of boosters, payload delivery vehicles (PDVs), non-nuclear warheads, thermal protection systems, guidance systems, test range modernization, and mission planning and enabling capabilities," the budget documents state. The results of flight and ground tests will drive program timing, according to the budget documents.

The most recent test of a CPGS sub program in August 2014 was terminated shortly after liftoff for safety reasons. The Advanced Hypersonic Weapon was supposed to travel 3,500 miles from the Kodiak Launch Complex in Alaska to Kwajalein Atoll. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is also seeking $49.5 million for its hypersonic air-breathing weapon concept. This program, which is a joint DARPA and Air Force effort, seeks to "develop and demonstrate technologies to enable transformational changes in responsive, long-range strike against time-critical
or heavily defended targets," budget justification documents state.

Plans for FY-17 include beginning to acquire "long lead hardware for hypersonic air-breathing missile flight demonstration vehicle" and continuing to put together "detailed plans for flight testing" of the system, according to the documents.

DARPA requested $40 million for this hypersonic air-breathing program in FY-16, but Congress only approved $13.5 million for the system. These technologies are slated to transition to the Air Force after testing is done. DARPA is also seeking $22.8 million for a tactical boost glide program, a joint effort with the Air Force that will "develop and demonstrate technologies to enable air-launched tactical range hypersonic boost glide systems," budget
justification documents state. -- Jordana Mishory

 

[fredymac]

Considering the first post of this thread dates back to 2010, the thesis of this whole program seems to be:

We want prompt global strike.

When?

Later. Much later.

 

[sferrin]

Considering the first post of this thread dates back to 2010, the thesis of this whole program seems to be:

We want prompt global strike.

When?

Later. Much later.

"And how are you going to get there?"
"We're going to do nothing and hope to wake up one morning with a fully developed weapon system. Wasting money on tests like China is for suckers."

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/02/26/hypersonic-missiles-could-operational-2020s-general-says/80993654/