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

Current US hypersonic weapons projects. (General)

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,144
Reaction score
433
I swear that an RFI/RFP for the booster effort had a loadout of three per SSGN tube....but I'm struggling to find it.

Possibly here? Not quite RFP official, but from a fairly good source.


However, the C-HGB is much bigger than the TLAM. The Navy is leaning on work it undertook more than a decade ago to craft a MAC system that was meant to hold three large intermediate-range ballistic missiles and could be repurposed to contain three C-HGBs instead.

Creating a conventional strike ballistic missile was scrapped nearly a decade ago, but the Navy dusted off the three-shot MAC tube plans to accommodate the similar-sized hypersonic strike weapon with the similar aims of delivering a non-nuclear strike weapon at long-range, according to Bryan Clark, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute who previously worked for former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert. The configuration can be used on the Ohio SSGNs and the upcoming Virginia Payload Modules in the Block V boats.
Thanks. Found it. (my emphasis)

https://beta.sam.gov/opp/d3371e91ce...sort=-relevance&index=&is_active=false&page=1

SSP is currently assessing the means to implement the goals set in the FY18 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for rapidly developing and prototyping a Navy Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) Weapon System (WS) for integration into and tactical deployment on sea-based launch platforms to meet a time-critical national need. The Navy CPS WS will consist of the following primary subsystems:

•· Large-diameter (>30 inches) All Up Round (AUR) [encapsulated missile with a Hypersonic Glide Body (HGB)].

•· Weapon Control System (WCS) for Fire Control.

•· Advanced Payload Module (APM) with AURs in a three-pack configuration. The APM interfaces the AUR to the host platform and includes a support structure, protection, compressed air ejectors, and environmental control not provided by the host platform.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,565
Reaction score
1,581
I think that was the same number for ATK's IRBM concept years ago as well. (3 per tube.)
 

quellish

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,173
Reaction score
203
Nope.

This is only blue rdt&e funding, and doesn't include the non-blue component which is what intel pass through funding is.

The Air Force classified RDTE budget is actually a few very large programs and a couple of smaller ones. The largest is the Air Force portion of NRO. I assume that is what those in this thread saying "pass through" mean (i.e. AF money going to NRO)
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,144
Reaction score
433

The Air Force classified RDTE budget is actually a few very large programs and a couple of smaller ones. The largest is the Air Force portion of NRO. I assume that is what those in this thread saying "pass through" mean (i.e. AF money going to NRO)
Do you have a sense that NRO has any recent appetite for endoatmospheric hypersonics?
 

Bhurki

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
127
Reaction score
76
The largest is the Air Force portion of NRO. I assume that is what those in this thread saying "pass through" mean (i.e. AF money going to NRO)
There's no intersection of funds (atleast not on paper) approved for NRO and actual air force. Thats why there's clearly defined boundaries for blue/non-blue components.

The graphic from Jane's represents only those funds which are directly under the control of Secretary of Air force.


This might help make it clearer, and how the air force is trying to adjust to the extra funding requirements for the space force.


Do you have a sense that NRO has any recent appetite for endoatmospheric hypersonics
Obviously thats highly improbable.
But even if there's intersection in one of the NRO programs' objectives with an AF program (say, hypersonics), it wouldn't reflect in the air forces' funding stream, and therefore conflating the two in any way is erroneous.
 

dark sidius

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 1, 2008
Messages
444
Reaction score
28
I m a lot like Sferrin I have more and more doubt about the mystery of a lot of program , zero evidence for a lot like the SR-72, RQ-180 etc.... since decade of mystery existence of this programs I have the real feeling that it don't exist. The only concrete since decade is a NGAD flying demonstrator.
 
Last edited:

Flyaway

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
4,623
Reaction score
2,287
I m a lot like Sferrin I have more and more doubt about the mystery of a lot of program , zero evidence for a lot like the SR-72, RQ-180 etc.... since decade of mystery existence of this programs I have the real feeling that it don't exist. The only concrete since decade is a NGAD flying demonstrator.
The RQ-180 I am more convinced exists especially since that picture was released a while back, plus there are other circumstantial reasons to believe it exists. The evidence for its existence is much better than it is for the others. It’s also not such an ‘out there’ vehicle as the others are, in other words it’s more in line with technologically what could be fielded now. The only thing alleged to be out there advanced about it is its skin. And even then it’s only supposed to be advanced in terms of thermal management not ridiculous things.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,565
Reaction score
1,581
I m a lot like Sferrin I have more and more doubt about the mystery of a lot of program , zero evidence for a lot like the SR-72, RQ-180 etc.... since decade of mystery existence of this programs I have the real feeling that it don't exist. The only concrete since decade is a NGAD flying demonstrator.
The RQ-180 I am more convinced exists especially since that picture was released a while back,

Link?
 

Flyaway

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
4,623
Reaction score
2,287
I m a lot like Sferrin I have more and more doubt about the mystery of a lot of program , zero evidence for a lot like the SR-72, RQ-180 etc.... since decade of mystery existence of this programs I have the real feeling that it don't exist. The only concrete since decade is a NGAD flying demonstrator.
The RQ-180 I am more convinced exists especially since that picture was released a while back,

Link?
Do you not look at this forum it was all over the RQ-180 thread at the beginning of last month?:eek:
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,565
Reaction score
1,581
I m a lot like Sferrin I have more and more doubt about the mystery of a lot of program , zero evidence for a lot like the SR-72, RQ-180 etc.... since decade of mystery existence of this programs I have the real feeling that it don't exist. The only concrete since decade is a NGAD flying demonstrator.
The RQ-180 I am more convinced exists especially since that picture was released a while back,

Link?
Do you not look at this forum it was all over the RQ-180 thread at the beginning of last month?
I don't recall anything that resembled a picture of an actual article. Could have missed it obviously.
 

Flyaway

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
4,623
Reaction score
2,287
I m a lot like Sferrin I have more and more doubt about the mystery of a lot of program , zero evidence for a lot like the SR-72, RQ-180 etc.... since decade of mystery existence of this programs I have the real feeling that it don't exist. The only concrete since decade is a NGAD flying demonstrator.
The RQ-180 I am more convinced exists especially since that picture was released a while back,

Link?
Do you not look at this forum it was all over the RQ-180 thread at the beginning of last month?
I don't recall anything that resembled a picture of an actual article. Could have missed it obviously.
And before you ask I am not convinced by the arguments that it’s a P-175.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,565
Reaction score
1,581
Misread your statement. Sounded like you were saying a picture was released that officially identified an RQ-180.
 

In_A_Dream

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
79
There is a lot of work going on behind the scenes & the US legislature & DOD are fully on board with mass producing every variant possible as a means of deterrence in the Western Pacific, rest assured.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
535
Reaction score
209
I have high hopes for the HAWC demonstrators. Those seem to be less expensive, smaller platforms compared to AGM-183 (which also hopefully is flight tested soon) and one USAF general was quoted as saying "14-20" weapons could be carried by a B-52.

 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,565
Reaction score
1,581
There is a lot of work going on behind the scenes & the US legislature & DOD are fully on board with mass producing every variant possible as a means of deterrence in the Western Pacific, rest assured.
For now. We'll see what happens going forward.
 
Last edited:

quellish

I am not actually here.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,173
Reaction score
203
There's no intersection of funds (atleast not on paper) approved for NRO and actual air force. Thats why there's clearly defined boundaries for blue/non-blue components.

The Air Force contributes funds to NRO. This has been the case since NRO's inception. There are unclassified documents out there that break down the "classified programs" spending by program. Those documents include information that makes it possible to identify the largest of those RDTE programs (by $) as NRO. A determined and methodical individual can find those documents and reconstruct large portions of the "black budget".

I am not going to publish those documents here as they will likely appear on The Drive within a few days along with clickbaity speculation about secret Laser Cats programs. And that would shut down the official, unclassified source of this information. This has happened before.

IIRC service contributions to NRO were also described in some of the IC budget documents leaked around the time of the Snowden leaks.
 

In_A_Dream

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
207
Reaction score
79
I am not going to publish those documents here as they will likely appear on The Drive within a few days along with clickbaity speculation about secret Laser Cats programs. And that would shut down the official, unclassified source of this information. This has happened before.
It's happened with a few of the links provided on this website in the past, a publication discussing Project: Isinglass was a notable one.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,619
Reaction score
1,139
Instead of gimballing your nozzle, laser can do the trick. Rich melange (burst) with directed laser energy will increase exhaust velocity assymmetrically leading to a perpendicular exhaust vector component ;)

And here is the laser cat (read above)
 

Attachments

  • 1607023200993.png
    1607023200993.png
    153.5 KB · Views: 3

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
535
Reaction score
209
I got a laser site for my pistol just to play with my cat. It's like thing is trying to die!
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,403
Reaction score
1,342
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
535
Reaction score
209
Annoying. I've been eagerly awaiting both HAWC tests and the AGM-183 test. I assume at this point none of the above will happen until 2021.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,207
Reaction score
201
Same or different? Or different but for same application?

Air Force Reveals Tests Of Supposed Record-Setting Scramjet Engine From Northrop Grumman (thedrive.com)

"The engine ran for a total of 30 minutes across an unspecified number of tests, generating up to 13,000 pounds of thrust under conditions the engine would experience at speeds of above Mach 4. "

From August 2019.

Different. Seems that both Orbital-ATK and Aerojet were funded for this program. O-ATK did the prior demonstration and Aerojet did the most recent one.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,403
Reaction score
1,342
Little different information

———————————————————
Tests were conducted across a range of Mach numbers demonstrating performance to accelerate a vehicle approximately 10 times the size of the X-51, at hypersonic speeds.
———————————————————
Ten times X-51 is this close to “fighter size”?
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,619
Reaction score
1,139
@bobbymike : If X-51 vehicule (without booster) is around 3m, then we have here a 30m (100ft) aircraft.
Not too bad to cram all the engines and fuel needed for a manned Hypersonic cruiser.
 
Last edited:

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
535
Reaction score
209
Little different information

———————————————————
Tests were conducted across a range of Mach numbers demonstrating performance to accelerate a vehicle approximately 10 times the size of the X-51, at hypersonic speeds.
———————————————————
Ten times X-51 is this close to “fighter size”?

Ten times the weight might be a different metric, but X-51 I think was ~3000lbs (not sure if that includes the booster). Seems like it might be a little light for a fighter, but then again maybe it would be a twin engined fighter. Plus we're just talking about a demonstrator engine. It seems like you could make a hypersonic fighter size aircraft with that engine; the hard part would be boosting an object of that size to effective scramjet speed. What would you even launch it off of, a Falcon 9?
 

mkellytx

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
174
Reaction score
104
Ten times the weight might be a different metric, but X-51 I think was ~3000lbs (not sure if that includes the booster). Seems like it might be a little light for a fighter, but then again maybe it would be a twin engined fighter. Plus we're just talking about a demonstrator engine. It seems like you could make a hypersonic fighter size aircraft with that engine; the hard part would be boosting an object of that size to effective scramjet speed. What would you even launch it off of, a Falcon 9?
X-51 was IIRC around 3000lb without the ATACMS booster, AF fact sheet says 4000lbs doesn't say if it's for the vehicle or the whole stack. Granted the last time I saw official X-51 documentation was over 12 years ago.

FWIW 30,000 lbs is an early F-16 in an A2A loadout, which is too big to fit under the wing of a BUFF. Why bring this up? One of the BUFF pilot, TPS instructor, then hypersonics guy, now retired just became the CTO at Stratolaunch, which announced it's focus is now hypersonic research. Coincidence?

If things scale up here, a 30,000 lb demonstrator would need a 10,000 lb booster if you can get the carrier up to 48-49,000 ft. The carrier can take up to a 500,000 lb payload to 35,000 ft, so a 30,000 lb demonstrator with a 20,000 lb booster is only 10% capacity. No need for something as big as an F9 first stage. Wonder if we're in for an announcement in the near future...

Edit:
Forgot to mention, Milkman (the CTO), who hated that call sign because he hated Karl Malone "The Mailman" (couldn't stand the Jazz), so he named himself "Doctor". So us crew dogs being crew dogs called him "Dr. Love" just to piss him off. Totally off topic funny aside, aside, Milkman/Doctor/Dr. Love was very heavily evolved in X-51 program even if Shotgun ended up flying the mission in the left seat...
 
Last edited:

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,619
Reaction score
1,139
@mkellytx : I think that at 30 000lb you can fit a fighter engine and have an hybrid propulsion setup (jet/rocket/scramjet).
Then, it doesn't put aside the need for Stratolaunch to carry it around during tests or provide range for the vehicule.
 

Similar threads

Top