• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Current US hypersonic weapons projects. (General)

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,086
Reaction score
1,146
From Inside Defense pay site


Army official: 'There isn't a moment to lose' on hypersonic weapon development
The official in charge of the Army's Long Range Precision Fires Cross-Functional Team today said the service's plan to develop a Long Range Hypersonic Weapon prototype by 2023 is the quickest way to maintain combined arms overmatch, as it aims to engage in the fight with Russia and China
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,086
Reaction score
1,146
 

Bhurki

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
83
Reaction score
49

AN/AWW-14(V)

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
316
Reaction score
545
Next Generation Land Attack Weapon (NGLAW)

Next Generation Land Attack Weapon (NGLAW) will provide the next generation of long-range, kinetic strike capability to destroy high-priority fixed, stationary and moving targets – as well as those targets hardened, defended or positioned at ranges such that engagement by aviation assets would incur unacceptable risk. NGLAW will be capable of kinetic land and maritime attack from both surface and sub-surface platforms.
The NGLAW AoA (Analysis of Alternatives) has completed and the classified results have been shared with all four congressional defense committees.



Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Increment 2

OASuW Increment 2 is required to deliver the long-term, air-launched ASuW capabilities to counter 2028 threats (and beyond). The Department continues to plan for OASuW Increment 2 via full and open competition. To inform the long-term path forward, the DoN will leverage the NGLAW AoA results to inform the required ASuW capabilities. The AoA study to determine the Increment 2 path-forward will complete in 3rd Qtr FY 2020. In the interim, the Navy is pursuing incremental upgrades to LRASM to bridge the gap to OASuW Increment 2 program of record. Increment 2 IOC is planned for the FY 2028-2030 timeframe.
 
Last edited:

seruriermarshal

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
982
Reaction score
74
DARPA Completes Key Milestone on Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapons Program

DARPA and the U.S. Air Force (USAF) today announced successful completion of captive carry tests of two variants of the Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC) and are ready to proceed to first free-flight testing within the calendar year. The joint Agency and Service effort seeks to develop and demonstrate critical technologies to enable an effective and affordable air-launched hypersonic cruise missile.

HAWC performers Lockheed Martin and Raytheon Technologies have each tested advanced air vehicle configurations that promise to achieve and sustain efficient hypersonic flight. Their upcoming flight tests will focus on hydrocarbon scramjet-powered propulsion and thermal management techniques to enable prolonged hypersonic cruise, in addition to affordable system designs and manufacturing approaches.

“Completing the captive carry series of tests demonstrates both HAWC designs are ready for free flight,” said Andrew “Tippy” Knoedler, HAWC program manager in DARPA’s Tactical Technology Office. “These tests provide us a large measure of confidence – already well informed by years of simulation and wind tunnel work – that gives us faith the unique design path we embarked on will provide unmatched capability to U.S. forces.”

The HAWC program, since inception, has been executed as a joint program between DARPA and the USAF. In addition, DARPA is working in cooperation with military services and agencies, including the Missile Defense Agency, U.S. Navy, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to validate, and eventually transition key technologies. The extensive flight data collected is intended to increase the confidence in air-breathing hypersonic systems and reduce the risks to potential future acquisition programs across the U.S. government.

 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,010
Reaction score
705
Rhoads [director of the Ray W. Herrick Laboratories and professor of mechanical engineering] said there are currently 18 research projects and groups conducting energetics research as part of the project. Among the research projects:

  • Gaining a better understanding of how shockwaves interact with the microstructure and defects in energetic materials.
  • Improving the performance of materials used in the aggressive service conditions such as gun launch and hypersonic flight.
  • Developing inkjet-printed conductive energetic materials.
  • Developing new manufacturing techniques to encapsulate metal or composite materials with embedded sensors to develop health-monitoring smart armor.
"It's an interesting project. On the one hand, it's trying to increase the effectiveness of these weapons, and on the other, it's trying to increase the safety and sustainability," Rhoads said.
 

In_A_Dream

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
172
Reaction score
61

dark sidius

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Aug 1, 2008
Messages
417
Reaction score
18
Its good news re starting things like x 43B its time now technology start to be mature and in the race with China it is Time to win
 

seruriermarshal

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
982
Reaction score
74

Josh_TN

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
343
Reaction score
128
The velocity will continue to bleed during the glide. So I suspect we are, among other things, seeing average speed conflated with max speed at burnout. Still, all of those seem higher than I would have thought. The 2017 test covered 2200 miles in under 30 minutes, which works to an average of ~Mach 6. But it would be the case that the longer the flight, the lower the average speed. I doubt we will ever truly know the envelope for the weapon, and I feel after you reach a certain threshold the difference is a little moot.

EDIT: is IR CSP a separate program/different missile than CSP? Or did it just get renamed?
 

Lc89

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
132
Reaction score
51
The velocity will continue to bleed during the glide. So I suspect we are, among other things, seeing average speed conflated with max speed at burnout. Still, all of those seem higher than I would have thought. The 2017 test covered 2200 miles in under 30 minutes, which works to an average of ~Mach 6. But it would be the case that the longer the flight, the lower the average speed. I doubt we will ever truly know the envelope for the weapon, and I feel after you reach a certain threshold the difference is a little moot.

EDIT: is IR CSP a separate program/different missile than CSP? Or did it just get renamed?
In the test of March 19 it reached the speed of mach 17, but I think it can also go faster if they launch it from further away, as with the test in 2014 from the island of Kodiak in Alaska to Kwajalein in the Marshall Islands, which however exploded at the moment of launch.
 
Last edited:

Josh_TN

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
343
Reaction score
128
Presumably the first airbreathing super/hyper sonic would be based on one of the HAWC demostrators. They are supposedly much smaller/lighter than ARRW. Their are quotes indicating that the USAF envisions B-52s being armed with "14 to 20" air breathing hypersonics; that would tend to put the weapon in the size and weight class of AGM-86 or perhaps a bit larger.

I have a hard time believing the B-1 fleet will ever be modified for hypersonics; we're basically talking about two dozen combat coded airframes that will be the first to the bone yard when the B-21 is introduced. Where as B-52's will hopefully be get an engine upgrade and be flying until 2040-50.
 

Flyaway

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
3,895
Reaction score
1,825
Someone mentioned on that Twitter thread that using the pylons breached the START treaty?
 

Josh_TN

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
343
Reaction score
128
Which I think is no longer in force. I think New START only restricts the total number of 'launchers' and 'warheads' as defined in the treaty, and puts no restrictions on bombers outside the fact that denuclearized bombers and nuclear bombers cannot be based in the same location (some of the B-52s have been denuclearized). In fact each bomber counts as a single 'warhead' per the language of the treaty, so bombers that count as nuclear launchers have no restrictions in terms of load. The only limit is a total of 800 launchers/700 deployed launchers. To get to that level, the SSBN fleet had four tubes filled with ballast and 50 ICBMs silos were taken out of operations, along with the B-52s (and I believe several B-2s as well; I can't explain why several were hanging out by themselves in Hawaii otherwise).


USAF presidential/vice presidential transport visible in top left corner.



The B-1 fleet is totally denuclearized so it would have no current restrictions as far as I know.
 

flateric

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,000
Reaction score
787
Those aren't the LRASM-B design. The design was different and the program was cancelled about 5 minutes after they announced it years ago.
Yes. Boeing stresses that both hypersonic missiles (boost-glide and airbreather) depicted are 'generic' designs based on unclassified data
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
295
Someone mentioned on that Twitter thread that using the pylons breached the START treaty?
The pylons just have to rendered incapable of carrying a nuclear weapon i.e. no System 1 /System 2 interface support.
 

Bhurki

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
83
Reaction score
49
Who's to say AGM-183A weighs 7,000lbs?
Umm.. Roper?!
7,300 lbs, 270"x30" was quoted..
Also, those dimensions match the ones deduced from the pic from B52 flight tests, so i don't see the mass deviating too much from whats announced.

Also, considering other solid rockets on various missiles of similar size(atacms on x51, iskander/kinzhal, df-11, skybolt), this seems the appropriate mass based on these dimensions.
Any chance of a link? I don't recall seeing either a weight or length given for AGM-183.
View: https://mobile.twitter.com/TheDEWLine/status/1233523377782054912
Did you READ the link? AGM-183 is a Lockheed Martin product. "And Boeing showed a “multipurpose booster” on centerline on #AWS20 display model, weighing 7,300lb and 270-in long." This is the Boeing missile they're referring to:

View attachment 639836
Well, i said something about the matching dimensions as well. Arrw literally is the same length/diameter as this, and it won't be entirely dubious to assume its weight as identical as well.
What on Earth are you on about?
Dare, i say it again arrw is 7300 lbs..
22,000/3

View: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1308511553633820678
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,828
Reaction score
295
Last edited:

Rhinocrates

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 26, 2006
Messages
273
Reaction score
147
Plus ça change... Reports on Myrabo's Lightcraft concept:



A book co-authored by Dean Ing and Leik Myrabo, The Future of Flight can be found on eBay, Abebooks etc.

Interviews with Leik Myrabo on The Space Show here.




Found this too. The original article is dated 1995.


... and that date reminds me of the feeling I get increasingly often when I watch movies on Netflix or wherever: "Oh that one's good, I think I saw it in a theatre couple of years ago in... 1995. Oh shit, I'm old."
 
Last edited:

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,271
Reaction score
1,295
Yep. That was the application but I think I saw it somewhere else.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,010
Reaction score
705
It's also easy to understand that harvesting energy from space (Celestial bodies or space vacuum) will be of a primordial strategic importance. (way easier to lase/beam from space than from earth)
Contested will also be the "shipping lines" where energy will be routed to us.
It might then be conceivable that futur (technological) wars will be the ones won by who secures the best their space harvesting energy facilities.
 
Last edited:

Josh_TN

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
343
Reaction score
128
Looking that far into the future, it seems likely there will be war over exploiting the resources in space and that it might spill over to Earth. One country loses in orbit, decides to take it dirt side where it has more of an advantage.
 
Top