US Hypersonics - Prompt Global Strike Capability

Cue (from USNI):

"This post has been updated to note that SSGN submarines, not SSBNs, would likely take on the
conventional prompt global strike mission, if the Pentagon were to continue with this capability development."
 
marauder2048 said:
Navy reveals plans to put hypersonic strike weapon on subs if DOD elects to acquire capability

November 03, 2017 | Jason Sherman Bookmark and Share

A senior Navy official said this week the service plans to arm its Ohio-class submarines and Virginia-class attack subs with a hypersonic boost-glide weapon, in the event Defense Department leaders elect to acquire such a capability, a significant revelation about U.S. military planning for a Conventional Prompt Strike capability. Vice Adm. Terry Benedict, director of the Navy Strategic Systems Program (SSP) office, made explicit for the first time what many analysts have presumed, that the U.S. military is eyeing a..

my emphasis

https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/navy-reveals-plans-put-hypersonic-strike-weapon-subs-if-dod-elects-acquire-capability

Image is from Nelson's SMDC presentation from April 2017
Click to expand...
Do you have the whole presentation?
 
The drawing of the HGV looks like the Army's HGW. The article mentions an HGV shape close to final production design which I would have thought would look more like the DARPA HTV (greater lift/glide range, maneuvering performance). The Army is supposedly still scheduled to fly a 3rd HGW after its' second flight had a booster failure at liftoff from Kodiak Alaska.
 

Attachments

  • DARPA HTV-2.jpg
    DARPA HTV-2.jpg
    100.9 KB · Views: 211
  • Army HGW.jpg
    Army HGW.jpg
    187 KB · Views: 221
Actually, from the EA, it comes across move as the 900 pound unitary penetrator that was mentioned as
a possible payload along with the rods.
 
dark sidius said:
Its a conventional "Marv" nothing more.
Click to expand...

Weird that they'd specify "up to 1,000 pounds of tungsten". Just an unusual description.
 
I'm guessing because of the payload options: the unitary penetrator or the tungsten rods (flechettes).

Sandia links AHW to work on TACMS-P which seems to go back to earlier LM work on an SLBM
MaRV with a unitary penetrator ("A Hard And Deeply Buried Target Defeat Concept" by Swinford and Kudlick of LM).
 

Attachments

  • ahw-flechettes.png
    ahw-flechettes.png
    620.3 KB · Views: 574
  • slbm-penetrating-marv.png
    slbm-penetrating-marv.png
    366 KB · Views: 556
  • TACMS-P(PENETRATOR).jpg
    TACMS-P(PENETRATOR).jpg
    85 KB · Views: 518
  • slbm-penetrator.pdf
    1.8 MB · Views: 39
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/11/12/navys_ultimate_weapon_sub-launched_hypersonic_missiles_112621.html
 
bobbymike said:
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/11/12/navys_ultimate_weapon_sub-launched_hypersonic_missiles_112621.html
Click to expand...

Wonder if the British navy will be seeking a similar capability for our submarines.
 
marauder2048 said:
I'm guessing because of the payload options: the unitary penetrator or the tungsten rods (flechettes).

Sandia links AHW to work on TACMS-P which seems to go back to earlier LM work on an SLBM
MaRV with a unitary penetrator ("A Hard And Deeply Buried Target Defeat Concept" by Swinford and Kudlick of LM).
Click to expand...

AHW is a direct descendant of SWERVE
 
quellish said:
marauder2048 said:
I'm guessing because of the payload options: the unitary penetrator or the tungsten rods (flechettes).

Sandia links AHW to work on TACMS-P which seems to go back to earlier LM work on an SLBM
MaRV with a unitary penetrator ("A Hard And Deeply Buried Target Defeat Concept" by Swinford and Kudlick of LM).
Click to expand...

AHW is a direct descendant of SWERVE
Click to expand...

The RV definitely is; didn't mean to imply otherwise. But I'm curious about the payload given
Sandia linking AHW to TACMS-P and the stated TACMS-P link to a Navy RV effort.

My understanding was that SWERVE carried a KEP warhead that
if not fuzed to disperse the tungsten rods had some penetrating capability
vs. the dedicated unitary penetrator of TACMS-P.
 

Attachments

  • tacsm-p-developed-configuration.png
    tacsm-p-developed-configuration.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 406
Inside Defense

Lawmakers set 2022 target for DOD to field 'early operational' hypersonic strike capability

November 13, 2017

Congress will soon vote on a defense policy bill that requires the U.S. military to plan for an "early operational" variant of a hypersonic strike weapon by 2022, setting a new statutory expectation for the Conventional Prompt Strike technology development effort.

The conference version of the House and Senate Armed Services committees' fiscal year 2018 defense authorization bill adopts the position advanced by the House requiring the defense secretary and Joint Chiefs chairman to "plan to reach an early operational capability for the conventional prompt strike weapon system by not later than September 30, 2022."

The Pentagon does not have a formal acquisition program of record for a hypersonic strike capability. The Defense Department is exploring potential boost-glide hypersonic technologies as part of a research and development effort overseen by the office of the secretary of defense, a project that has spent nearly $1 billion to date, with plans to allocate another $1.2 billion over the next five years.

In accordance with congressional guidance in the FY-16 National Defense Authorization Act, DOD plans a materiel development decision for a Conventional Prompt Strike capability in FY-20, the initial gateway to a formal acquisition effort.

The final FY-18 defense policy bill scrapped a House-proposed provisions to fence half the funding for the Conventional Prompt Strike program in the current fiscal year until the Pentagon provides lawmakers a report on the program, opting instead to set a 180-day deadline for the delivery of the report after the bill is enacted.

The report, which is to be prepared by the Joint Chiefs chairman in consultation with the heads of U.S. European, Pacific and Strategic commands, is to outline "the required level of resources that is consistent with the level of priority associated to the capability gap."

The required Pentagon appraisal is also to outline "the estimated period for the delivery of a medium-range early operational capability [and] the required level of resources necessary to field a medium-range conventional prompt strike weapon within the United States (including the territories and possessions of the United States) or a similar sea-based system."

In addition, the report is to address plans to ensure interoperability among any joint military hypersonic strike capabilities as well as plans -- including policy options -- "considered appropriate to address any potential risks of ambiguity from the launch or employment of such a capability."

The Joint Requirements Oversight Council, led by Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Paul Selva, 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.

Then-Defense Secretary Ash Carter, in written responses to Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) following a March 4, 2016, hearing of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, explained DOD had promised commanders in Europe and the Pacific an initial hypersonic strike capability between FY-18 and FY-22.

Aderholt had asked whether any combatant commanders had formally identified a need for a Conventional Prompt Global Strike capability, or the means to strike targets anywhere on earth in as little as an hour.

Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, EUCOM chief, and Adm. Harry Harris, PACOM head, according to Carter, both "submitted high-priority requirements for these capabilities" as part of the routine process combatant commanders use to influence Pentagon resource decisions, in this case the shape of the FY-18 budget and the accompanying five-year spending plan.
 
http://www.airforce-technology.com/features/hypersonic-flight-transform-air-combat/
 
December 2016 TEDx talk by a program manager for scramjet development. He goes over some basic theory and early development work and gets to the X-51 around the 7:30 mark. At the very end he seems to go off into the bushes with some ideas about anti-matter as a far off ideal fuel. Hopefully he threw that in because he figured he had to say something "edgy" for a TEDx talk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJWoKsfsSaA
 
https://udayton.edu/news/articles/2017/12/udri_steve_olson_hypersonic_vehicle_research.php
 
http://www.whio.com/news/local-military/hypersonic-research-could-lead-future-spy-drone/rOaqyurXUU0rZ0aM1Aj1xL/
Another one ;)
 
https://overthehorizonmdos.com/2018/01/22/the-phonics-of-hypersonics/
 
http://aviationweek.com/aviation-week-space-technology/hypersonic-race-heats-boeing-reusable-demonstrator-concept
 
http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2018/January%202018/Whos-In-Charge-of-Catching-Up-to-China-in-Hypersonics.aspx
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2018/January%202018/Whos-In-Charge-of-Catching-Up-to-China-in-Hypersonics.aspx
Click to expand...

Basically, "Uh. . . ."
 
http://aviationweek.com/defense/podcast-hypersonics-and-things-go-boom-desert
 
https://www.military.com/defensetech/2018/01/31/us-losing-its-advantage-race-hypersonic-technology-selva.html?ESRC=dod-bz.nl&spMailingID=1222495&spUserID=Mjk3OTgyNTY0MzkS1&spJobID=480019819&spReportId=NDgwMDE5ODE5S0

Just consider what was being done in the 50s and 60s yes 50 and 60 years ago. Now we get a flight test every two years or something. The failure to pursue and build so many promising technologies............
 
bobbymike said:
https://www.military.com/defensetech/2018/01/31/us-losing-its-advantage-race-hypersonic-technology-selva.html?ESRC=dod-bz.nl&spMailingID=1222495&spUserID=Mjk3OTgyNTY0MzkS1&spJobID=480019819&spReportId=NDgwMDE5ODE5S0

Just consider what was being done in the 50s and 60s yes 50 and 60 years ago. Now we get a flight test every two years or something. The failure to pursue and build so many promising technologies............
Click to expand...

As I said in another thread, China will lead where we fear to go. They set a goal and make it happen. We're more like the Keystone Cops, with any advancements almost by chance and temporary. (The notable exception is fighter engines. Now imagine we had that much consistent drive in all disciplines. That's China.)
 
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
https://www.military.com/defensetech/2018/01/31/us-losing-its-advantage-race-hypersonic-technology-selva.html?ESRC=dod-bz.nl&spMailingID=1222495&spUserID=Mjk3OTgyNTY0MzkS1&spJobID=480019819&spReportId=NDgwMDE5ODE5S0

Just consider what was being done in the 50s and 60s yes 50 and 60 years ago. Now we get a flight test every two years or something. The failure to pursue and build so many promising technologies............
Click to expand...

As I said in another thread, China will lead where we fear to go. They set a goal and make it happen. We're more like the Keystone Cops, with any advancements almost by chance and temporary. (The notable exception is fighter engines. Now imagine we had that much consistent drive in all disciplines. That's China.)
Click to expand...

The only problem with this pet theory of yours is I imagine much of the US’s hypersonic research is classified so therefore impossible to know the progress of.
 
Flyaway said:
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
https://www.military.com/defensetech/2018/01/31/us-losing-its-advantage-race-hypersonic-technology-selva.html?ESRC=dod-bz.nl&spMailingID=1222495&spUserID=Mjk3OTgyNTY0MzkS1&spJobID=480019819&spReportId=NDgwMDE5ODE5S0

Just consider what was being done in the 50s and 60s yes 50 and 60 years ago. Now we get a flight test every two years or something. The failure to pursue and build so many promising technologies............
Click to expand...

As I said in another thread, China will lead where we fear to go. They set a goal and make it happen. We're more like the Keystone Cops, with any advancements almost by chance and temporary. (The notable exception is fighter engines. Now imagine we had that much consistent drive in all disciplines. That's China.)
Click to expand...

The only problem with this pet theory of yours is I imagine much of the US’s hypersonic research is classified so therefore impossible to know the progress of.
Click to expand...
Sferrin is using current facts as to the nature of each countries observable reality to draw a reasonable conclusion your “we can’t know because it’s classified” is pure speculation by definition of it being classified.

So at this point sferrin is making a reasonable assumption while you are not.
 
Flyaway said:
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
https://www.military.com/defensetech/2018/01/31/us-losing-its-advantage-race-hypersonic-technology-selva.html?ESRC=dod-bz.nl&spMailingID=1222495&spUserID=Mjk3OTgyNTY0MzkS1&spJobID=480019819&spReportId=NDgwMDE5ODE5S0

Just consider what was being done in the 50s and 60s yes 50 and 60 years ago. Now we get a flight test every two years or something. The failure to pursue and build so many promising technologies............
Click to expand...

As I said in another thread, China will lead where we fear to go. They set a goal and make it happen. We're more like the Keystone Cops, with any advancements almost by chance and temporary. (The notable exception is fighter engines. Now imagine we had that much consistent drive in all disciplines. That's China.)
Click to expand...

The only problem with this pet theory of yours is I imagine much of the US’s hypersonic research is classified so therefore impossible to know the progress of.
Click to expand...

The only problem with this pet theory of yours is the plethora of failed, or aborted, programs when it comes to hypersonics in the white world. When the only example of a "success" trumpeted about was actually a failure (the X-51 didn't reach anything like the speed or acceleration it was intended to) to think that there is some miracle going on in the black world we don't know about is a bit of a stretch. To be polite.
 
Despite my negativism (I really want there to be classified programs) hopefully at least there is a fire being lit under DC, DOD and industry. I do have optimism in the 'bucks for Buck Rogers" theory and the innovation capabilities of American industry/enterprise.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/raytheon-may-build-hypersonic-weapons-keep-america-ahead-24269

http://aviationweek.com/defense/hypersonic-race-heats-boeing-reusable-demonstrator-concept?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20180202_AW-05_931&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_1&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=13468&utm_medium=email&elq2=41d0b8f49ffd4a3abeb620d531685b74

Boeing is raising the stakes in the accelerating race for U.S. hypersonic leadership by positioning itself to develop a potential future Mach 5-plus strike-and-reconnaissance aircraft.

The move, which was signaled by the unexpected unveiling of a reusable hypersonic demonstrator concept vehicle at an aerospace science and research conference in Florida in early January, directly challenges Lockheed Martin. In 2013, Lockheed revealed plans to develop a Mach 6 successor to the long-retired SR-71 Blackbird.

Boeing’s ambitious plan emerges amid continuing signs of a significant upswing in U.S. hypersonic research and development and builds on decades of design experience gained through a variety of high-speed rocket and air-breathing-powered programs. The sharply swept delta-wing vehicle concept notably leverages the X-43 and X-51A hypersonic demonstrator programs but also incorporates several design features from projects produced from companies Boeing later acquired, including the Mach 3 XB-70 Valkyrie experimental bomber project.
Click to expand...
 
Title: Air Launched Rapid response Weapon (ARRW)
Description: Integrates Air Force and DARPA enabled system technologies into a prototype that will
demonstrate the viability of this concept to be fielded as a long range prompt strike capability. ARRW will
design, develop, manufacture, and test, a number of prototype vehicles to inform decisions concerning ARRW
acquisition and production.

ARRW Aquisition Strategy - The Air Force applied funding to an existing DARPA other transaction authority contract to Lockheed Martin in order to leverage the synergistic efforts ongoing in the Tactical Boost Glide technology demonstration. The cost type contract incentives schedule through milestone payments. The government agency responsible for managing this program is the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Armament Directorate, Eglin AFB FL.

HCSW - The Air Force is conducting a limited source competition for the rapid development of a hypersonic, conventional air-launched, stand-off weapon. An IDIQ contract will be awarded to a single offeror to develop/test all elements of the end-to-end system, integration with existing bomber/fighter Aircraft, all respective operations/mission planning and sustainment efforts, to include operational safety, suitability, and effectiveness. Contract award is anticipated in the second quarter of FY 2018. The government agency responsible for managing this program is the Air Force Life Cycle Management Center, Armament Directorate, Eglin AFB FL.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • ALRRWHP.JPG
    ALRRWHP.JPG
    74.8 KB · Views: 182
  • USAFHypersonicPrototypingPB19--3.JPG
    USAFHypersonicPrototypingPB19--3.JPG
    154.3 KB · Views: 180
  • USAFHypersonicPrototypingPB19--2.JPG
    USAFHypersonicPrototypingPB19--2.JPG
    234.9 KB · Views: 186
  • USAFHypersonicPrototypingPB19.JPG
    USAFHypersonicPrototypingPB19.JPG
    234.5 KB · Views: 194
I hope they consider rocket power for the ARRW. Something like a modern Skybolt could fit the bill.
 
https://warontherocks.com/2018/02/asia-inf/

Consider the military benefits, if the United States was able to deploy conventional ground-launched intermediate-range missiles in the Western Pacific.
Click to expand...

Been saying this for years. Although I've also thought a converted LHA using Columbia CMC tubes by the dozens would be nice as well. Or years from now salvage the missile launch tubes from retiring Ohios
 
bobbymike said:
https://warontherocks.com/2018/02/asia-inf/

Consider the military benefits, if the United States was able to deploy conventional ground-launched intermediate-range missiles in the Western Pacific.
Click to expand...

Been saying this for years. Although I've also thought a converted LHA using Columbia CMC tubes by the dozens would be nice as well. Or years from now salvage the missile launch tubes from retiring Ohios
Click to expand...

Hell, with ATK's KEI-based IRBM (3 or 4 to an Ohio cell as I recall) we could have had one years ago.
 
sferrin said:
I hope they consider rocket power for the ARRW. Something like a modern Skybolt could fit the bill.
Click to expand...

ARRW is going to be leveraging technology from DARPA's TBG which would hint at boost glide weapon. HCSW appears to be more near term since they will be at source selection very soon.
 
HAWC/TBG/OpFires (DARPA FY19 Budget)
 

Attachments

  • HAWC-DARPA19-1.png
    HAWC-DARPA19-1.png
    618.6 KB · Views: 95
  • TBG-DARPA19-1.png
    TBG-DARPA19-1.png
    418 KB · Views: 22
  • OpFires-DARPA19-1.png
    OpFires-DARPA19-1.png
    591.2 KB · Views: 22
dark sidius said:
I see nothing about a reusable hypersonic system ?
Click to expand...

AFRE is funded and the TBCC system is expected to have its CDR in FY19. XS-1 is funded as well.
 

Attachments

  • DARPA-FY19-34.JPG
    DARPA-FY19-34.JPG
    127.2 KB · Views: 26
  • DARPA-FY19-35.JPG
    DARPA-FY19-35.JPG
    66.2 KB · Views: 32

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom