Current US hypersonic weapons projects. (General)

I was going to say AARGM-ER with a booster, but roughly the same flight profile either way.

I am assuming this is the full sized model for something like CAML and that the second stage is what would be air or HIMARS launched? They did not really leave anything in the picture to give any sense of scale outside maybe the castors.
 
If that entire thing represents the HiMARS version, it would be limited to ~13 feet and has a lot of taper…I would assume a smaller warhead that PrSM, though perhaps it gains enough of a weight saving advantage being two stage that a longer portion of that more narrow 2nd stage is warhead. Given the caster wheels, I am leaning towards this being 12-13 feet. Cross section of the second stage looks elliptical on top of strake extension, but could just be the camera angle and the black Matt finish.

Carbon fiber body?
 
https://www.castelion.com/news/series-c/

“Developing a Longer-Range Strike System.  Castelion is accelerating development and test of a much longer-range precision strike weapon which has been in development at Castelion for several years. This weapon leverages core technologies, components, and manufacturing techniques from the Blackbeard weapon. The goal is to complement large, exquisite systems with a dramatically lower-cost alternative that can be produced at much higher rates – making long-range hypersonic strike a capability that can be fielded in meaningful quantities”
 
Ok, I think I am understanding the picture now. There were so many reports about Castelion that seemed to have contradictory capabilities and sizes, all the way down to AAM sized weapons. But one thing I remember was a report that “Blackbeard” would be carried 2x per F-35C bay, 4 total. That makes sense looking at the above pic: that’s the HIMARS/surface launched version, and the second stage is probably ~6-6.5 feet, making it just short enough to potentially be carrier two weapons nose to tail in F-35C (or A). Warhead is apparently only 100lb class which is why the stack is so small. So as @bring_it_on posted here or in another thread awhile ago, there really is not any magic here - they are just building a smaller mouse trap that’s easier to build, not pushing any technological boundaries. That said, if the guidance system can accurately place that warhead, even in an electronically stressed environment, there’s a lot of value to a high speed weapon that can be purchased in quantity. For the USN, which is solely reliant on tactical aircraft for all of its strike capabilities, there’s a lot of value in a sub 1000# (tandem ejector racks, F-18 outter pylons), 6 ft/2m (F-35 IWB) weapon with a PrSM like speed and range.


https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...u-s-navys-primary-hypersonic-strike-munition/
 
I think we also know why AGM-88G and SiAW fell out of favor…because two missiles for the same cost and internal volume are better than one, assuming they are accurate enough.
 
Josh_TN said:
I think we also know why AGM-88G and SiAW fell out of favor
Click to expand...

But how do you/we know that? What evidence is there that this missile can perform the mission specified of the AARGM-ER and SiAW and if they have fallen out of favor because of this why have both the Navy and Air Force requirested both of those systems in the POM? Has Northrop Grumman decided to license its AARGM guidance system? If not, what developmental testing has this $400K missile's guidance system been put through? What guidance system does it even have at that price point? Or are NDC's exempt from that too?
 
bring_it_on said:
But how do you/we know that? What evidence is there that this missile can perform the mission specified of the AARGM-ER and SiAW and if they have fallen out of favor because of this why have both the Navy and Air Force requirested both of those systems in the POM? Has Northrop Grumman decided to license its AARGM guidance system? If not, what developmental testing has this $400K missile's guidance system been put through? What guidance system does it even have at that price point? Or are NDC's exempt from that too?
Click to expand...

Fair enough. We don’t know, but we have a single piece of evidence that points to that decision, even if that decision is incorrect.

And it kinda seems like this administration is not nailing defense department decisions, so movements away from primes towards Brah tech startups might not be the best thing…but it does seem to be a pattern for this POTUS and SecDef.
 
Josh_TN said:
Ok, I think I am understanding the picture now. There were so many reports about Castelion that seemed to have contradictory capabilities and sizes, all the way down to AAM sized weapons. But one thing I remember was a report that “Blackbeard” would be carried 2x per F-35C bay, 4 total. That makes sense looking at the above pic: that’s the HIMARS/surface launched version, and the second stage is probably ~6-6.5 feet.
Click to expand...

It would be very cool to see the missile + the booster stack launched from an F-15E(X). Probably not reasonable though.
 
Josh_TN said:
Ok, I think I am understanding the picture now. There were so many reports about Castelion that seemed to have contradictory capabilities and sizes, all the way down to AAM sized weapons. But one thing I remember was a report that “Blackbeard” would be carried 2x per F-35C bay, 4 total. That makes sense looking at the above pic: that’s the HIMARS/surface launched version, and the second stage is probably ~6-6.5 feet, making it just short enough to potentially be carrier two weapons nose to tail in F-35C (or A). Warhead is apparently only 100lb class which is why the stack is so small. So as @bring_it_on posted here or in another thread awhile ago, there really is not any magic here - they are just building a smaller mouse trap that’s easier to build, not pushing any technological boundaries. That said, if the guidance system can accurately place that warhead, even in an electronically stressed environment, there’s a lot of value to a high speed weapon that can be purchased in quantity. For the USN, which is solely reliant on tactical aircraft for all of its strike capabilities, there’s a lot of value in a sub 1000# (tandem ejector racks, F-18 outter pylons), 6 ft/2m (F-35 IWB) weapon with a PrSM like speed and range.


https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...u-s-navys-primary-hypersonic-strike-munition/
Click to expand...
To be fair, I'm not entirely sure if the thing in the photo is the HIMARS/surface launched version or that the air launched version doesn't need the booster?. I mean without the booster, it seem like pretty small missile, I'm quite skeptical that it can reach hypersonic speed
 
Are we absolutely sure that upper stage is unpowered? There are actual sources explicitly claiming that?
Because there's really nothing preventing adding a small rocket motor inside of that very long but narrow glide body. Usually glide bodies, when unpowered, are quite a bit shorter, compared to their diameter.
 
Whether it. reaches Mach 3.4 or Mach 5 is pretty much irrelevant to what really matters in this. If it can actually hit a target under EW and contested GPS, and do so repeatedly at volume with a warhead actually capable of defeating a useful chunk of the threat, and at a sub $500K cost then thats a pretty successful product for a startup that is looking to vertically integrate in this space and thus pitching itself as an alternative to delicate and stressed supply chains and slow development cycles. The 'hypersonic branding here might just be to create hype to raise money for the company. Or it might actually hit those numbers through efficiency and a small warhead and guidance section. Or it might be. reserved for future iterations of this weapon. Who knows.

As currently presented, this thing is not replacing PrSM, SiAW, LRHW, ICBM or the F-22 raptor, Air Force One or whatever else folks on social media may claim. Still may be a useful capability if it can live up to its promise.
 
Last edited:
Ronny said:
To be fair, I'm not entirely sure if the thing in the photo is the HIMARS/surface launched version or that the air launched version doesn't need the booster?. I mean without the booster, it seem like pretty small missile, I'm quite skeptical that it can reach hypersonic speed
Click to expand...

I think “hypersonic” is marketing. It probably only briefly crosses Mach 5 at burn out. I think it is a supersonic weapon with aggressive branding.
 
totoro said:
Are we absolutely sure that upper stage is unpowered? There are actual sources explicitly claiming that?
Because there's really nothing preventing adding a small rocket motor inside of that very long but narrow glide body. Usually glide bodies, when unpowered, are quite a bit shorter, compared to their diameter.
Click to expand...

It definitely is powered. It is basically a small Mako/SiAW.
 
bring_it_on said:
As currently presented, this thing is not replacing PrSM, SiAW, LRHW, ICBM or the F-22 raptor, Air Force One or whatever else folks on social media may claim. Still may be a useful capability if it can live up to its promise.
Click to expand...

SiAW replacement *might* be on the table. Otherwise agree.
 
Josh_TN said:
SiAW replacement *might* be on the table. Otherwise agree.
Click to expand...
Perhaps based on vibes but not on anything that is known in the public domain. The Air Force isn't even invested in the program. It is invested in the SiAW and is actively testing the weapon right now while facilitizing for its production. Its also programmed missile buys in the POM.
 
I’m sure SiAW enters production, but I feel that the production run might be truncated somewhat compared to the original plan.
 
Josh_TN said:
I’m sure SiAW enters production, but I feel that the production run might be truncated somewhat compared to the original plan.
Click to expand...
That is entirely possible. One can say the same about ARRW and HACM because there's just as about as much evidence as this thing meeting SiAW requirements as there is about it meeting those requirements.
 
A restricted navigation zone has reappeared off the coast of California, indicating a test launch scheduled for August 19–21. The shape and scope of this zone resemble those seen during past test flights of the TBG or ARRW. Given that the TBG program has already concluded, the test must involve the ARRW.
 

Attachments

  • Image_1787334479719.jpg
    Image_1787334479719.jpg
    156.7 KB · Views: 54

Attachments

  • blackbeardvid3.png
    blackbeardvid3.png
    2.2 MB · Views: 63
  • blackbeardvid2.png
    blackbeardvid2.png
    1 MB · Views: 56
  • blackbeardvid1.png
    blackbeardvid1.png
    1.7 MB · Views: 70
My estimates for vehicle dimensions:

Assuming the Remove Before Flight tag on the vehicle is 120 mm long and inclined at an angle of 20 degrees from vertical, its vertical height is 112 mm.

Length overall: 4227 mm (13.87 ft)
Vehicle length: 2126 mm (6.98 ft)
Vehicle height: 237 mm (9.3 in)
Booster length: 2101 mm (6.89 ft)
Booster diameter: 326 mm (12.8 in)

Fin height: 386 mm (15.2 in)
Fin span: 546 mm (21.5 in)

Overall length likely indicates that the weapon is designed to fit on Navy weapon elevators and in F-35A and F-35C internal bays. Fin span is smaller than the GBU-31 fins.

Vehicle volume: 0.095 m^2
Booster volume: 0.175 m^3

Assuming a bulk density of 1.75 tons per m^3 and not accounting for the non-circular shape of the upper-stage vehicle:

Vehicle mass: 166 kg
Booster mass: 306 kg

Overall mass: 472 kg

Based on the size of the upper-stage vehicle, I would estimate a warhead mass between 25 and 50 kg. For comparison, the PrSM supposedly carries a 90 kg warhead.
 
TomcatViP said:
Yes, it's either quite small for an hypersonic missile or those Castor wheels are... Big.
Click to expand...
The casters are distinctive. You'd have to be bored though. There are a lot of casters out there. (Casters can get fairly large but looking at the foot brake on those I'd guess 8"-10".)
 
I’m gonna go with they designed this thing for the F-35 market, which is huge, at 2 per IWB, and then tacked on a cheap booster for a PrSM analog. Money made via mass production of the common end missile, with the booster being an add on for surface launch, but the actual weapon designed around F-35 carriage and launch.
 
Josh_TN said:
I’m gonna go with they designed this thing for the F-35 market, which is huge, at 2 per IWB, and then tacked on a cheap booster for a PrSM analog. Money made via mass production of the common end missile, with the booster being an add on for surface launch, but the actual weapon designed around F-35 carriage and launch.
Click to expand...
The F-35 weapons bay is 14 ft long, which is close to the overall length of this Blackbeard. The MFOM pod is actually shorter (13 ft) so anything that fits in an MFOM pod will fit within the length available for an F-35. The upper-stage vehicle here is about half the length of an AARGM-ER even if it only looks a little stubbier.
 
Is it just me or does it look like black beard has 3 distinct stages?
 

Attachments

  • blackbeardvid3.png
    blackbeardvid3.png
    2.2 MB · Views: 57
Sferrin said:
Size doesn't determine that.

https://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/hasp.html
Click to expand...
Sounding rocket doesn't need to carry seeker hough, so they can use most of their internal space/weight for propellants. Besides, that sounding rocket look pretty thin whereas black beard is a bit stubby (draggier)
Josh_TN said:
I think “hypersonic” is marketing. It probably only briefly crosses Mach 5 at burn out. I think it is a supersonic weapon with aggressive branding.
Click to expand...
Even if Blackbeard only briefly reaches Mach 5 at burnout, its overall kinematic performance still looks extremely impressive. Blackbeard is reportedly expected to have a range of around 500 miles, compared with roughly 185 miles for the AARGM-ER, which is itself expected to reach around Mach 4 at burnout. If Castelion can really achieve more than twice the range and around 25% higher speed in a missile roughly half the size of the AARGM-ER, that would be absolutely insane from a kinematic standpoint.
 
Ronny said:
If Castelion can really achieve more than twice the range and around 25% higher speed in a missile roughly half the size of the AARGM-ER, that would be absolutely insane from a kinematic standpoint.
Click to expand...

I wonder if there will be a future upgrade to the AGM-88G's rocket-motor to extend its range by upgrading to a dual or triple pulse rocket-motor?
 
Pardon me, had 5 pages to catch up on.
Forest Green said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1963017758666289185
View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1963017758666289185

https://twitter.com/x/status/1963039143476220067
View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1963039143476220067

https://twitter.com/x/status/1963068860954767505
View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1963068860954767505

https://twitter.com/x/status/1963069684346970144
View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1963069684346970144
Click to expand...
Or we could just say "screw it" and go back to ASALM...


Byeman said:
That isn't responsive, unless there are multiple platforms on orbit. Only two passes per day per a single platform.
Click to expand...
Depends on cross-range and orbital altitude.


Josh_TN said:
Smaller presumably, though no hard dimensions have been given. But it is not a direct replacement; as an air breather it operates in a different altitude band and trajectory. Moreover, the threshold aircraft is F-15, not B-52. Originally the plan was to develop both concurrently, and it is possible that still might happen/is happening.
Click to expand...
ARRW is packable by an F-15, though. It's only 5000lbs.



Josh_TN said:
I still think it is inefficient to try to force the CPS onto hulls whose main roll is air defense. CPS requires none of the same facilities as a AAW platform and has nothing like the envelope.
Click to expand...
Yes, CPS does require some of the same facilities: ship size.

Any ship big enough to carry a 10m long missile also happens to be large enough to support BMD-class radars.

Conversely, any ship big enough to support BMD-class radars is also big enough to hold a dozen or so CPS.

Plus, it is very clear that the USN intends to use CPS to mostly replace Tomahawks as the "The Government of the United States of America is now officially done with your shit" messenger. DDGX was required to carry both a 5" gun and CPS, but there wasn't enough space in a 15k-17k ton hull for both.



Josh_TN said:
What self defense weapons and damage control are going to be effective against ASBMs? And if a defense against ABSMs is necessary, does it not make more sense to just escort the CPS ships when needed but otherwise divorce those two requirements from each other? Trying to squeeze those two requirements on one hull is just asking for another failed program that gets cancelled before it hits the water. Moreover if you want more CPS on a shorter timeframe, that is entirely doable. We could have some by end of decade, no matter which option was selected, so long as that requirement was not paired with DDGX or the to be cancelled in 2029 BBGX.
Click to expand...
What self-defense weapons would be effective versus AShBMs? PAC3s. SM6, likely. Possibly the ARH SM2s, as those are literally an SM6 not counting the booster.

Shucking and jiving like it's a mosh pit would be recommended. Using every available soft-kill system.

Damage control? Based on what happened to an old DE after catching an unarmed Talos in a terminal dive, anything less than a carrier is likely broken in half.



Josh_TN said:
Seems a little unlikely the USN would be interested in a weapon longer than its ordnance elevators.
Click to expand...
Not for Air Launch, no.

For ship launch, however?



Ronny said:
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-new...u-s-navys-primary-hypersonic-strike-munition/View attachment 810204

Is it just me or this sound ways too good to be true?. Am I dreaming? . USN will have a hypersonic weapon that is small enough to fit 4 round inside F-35, yet still massively cheaper than the average cruise missile?. And they already intended to buy over 350 round next year ( an not some paper project that will never leave the power point stage?).
I have always want USN to purchase something like air launched PRSM or MAKO but damm, this is like 10 times better new
Click to expand...
How the heck are they packing 4 hypersonic weapons into the space of a single Mk84.



bobbymike said:
Sorry for the speculation but with this apparent real full court press from multiple systems I’m wondering if there were missed “fleeting” targets in this most recent conflict that hypersonics would have been able to hit?
Click to expand...
I strongly believe that there were.



flateric said:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/278217337896
https://www.ebay.com/itm/376615817355
https://www.ebay.com/itm/188004050962
https://www.ebay.com/itm/127096832846
https://www.ebay.com/itm/227444983547
https://www.ebay.com/itm/358273737986
Click to expand...
Oh, man, I really like that challenge coin!
 
Ronny said:
Is it just me or does it look like black beard has 3 distinct stages?
Click to expand...
Only 2 based on close-ups.

wtna7 said:
A restricted navigation zone has reappeared off the coast of California, indicating a test launch scheduled for August 19–21. The shape and scope of this zone resemble those seen during past test flights of the TBG or ARRW. Given that the TBG program has already concluded, the test must involve the ARRW.
Click to expand...
Josh_TN said:
What is the distance to the last splash zone? Not near my laptop.
Click to expand...
About 2500km - broad-arsed guess.
 

Attachments

  • 1787383705698.png
    1787383705698.png
    1.7 MB · Views: 40
  • 1787384042908.png
    1787384042908.png
    672.1 KB · Views: 17
NMaude said:
The USAF really dropped the ball when it cancelled the ASALM, IMO it should be resurrected and given a 21st century tech refresh.
Click to expand...
Won't quite be hypersonic, but IIRC the test shots did sustain M4.5. Getting creative with the fuel might get the ramjet up to M5.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Melted the skin and then came apart pretty quickly.
Click to expand...

From what I understand its' skin started melting just in time for it to flame-out due to fuel-exhaustion before burying itself into a field nose first shortly afterwards.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom