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

Current US hypersonic weapons projects. (General)

greenmartian2017

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
93
Reaction score
50
A manned hypersonic vehicle that either flies in low Earth orbit, or just about flies at that altitude (highest endo-atmospheric), has been a very attractive subject for US policy makers for a very long time, over time. Just because the declassified literature "dies out" by 1971 or 1972 doesn't mean the concept wasn't pursued beyond that date. It just means that government declassification officials have deemed that follow-ons to ISINGLASS aren't to be acknowledged, or to be known by the public at this time.
Even ISINGLASS seems to have fallen down in part on IR vulnerability analysis.

It's a recurring theme; you can find papers from the 80's on IR tracking of transatmospheric vehicles.

Detecting and tracking the much more modest SR-72 via a small sat constellation equipped with
some basic MWIR sensors looks quite achievable.

You are talking about 2000 K scramjet exhaust and IR spectra that's not going to be much attenuated
against spaceborne sensors at the typical scramjet altitudes.

This constellation probably isn't going to be transmitting fire control quality tracks but
accurate enough warning such that vulnerable sites can get their counter-ISR techniques in place.
I am aware of the IR factor. The speed of the vehicle was deemed such that it didn't much matter--no Soviet missile or missile intercept attempt would get close enough. Even with some lead detection time. This was projected through at least 1980.

See the set of overhead transparencies with this particular document dated to 1968. All the calculations were done. Soviet interception not viable. Not even with nuclear warhead detonations (although if it was a hydrogen bomb, there was some expectation that there was a potential likelihood for high irradiation of the pilot(s)). "If you don't announce yourself, they can't expect to know when you'll arrive."

 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,159
Reaction score
471
I am aware of the IR factor. The speed of the vehicle was deemed such that it didn't much matter--no Soviet missile or missile intercept attempt would get close enough. Even with some lead detection time. This was projected through at least 1980.
And this was essentially the same survivability analysis that had been presented to McMillan earlier.
And he (correctly) criticized it for assuming that the Russians couldn't develop radars that could
achieve 1 degree (or less) above the horizon radar look angles, reaction times comparable to Nike-X
and IR homing. Even track-via-missile, an early 60's development, would have been an extremely threatening
development.
 
Last edited:

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
1,536
From Inside Defense pay site


SSP director: CPS program remains 'on track' despite FY-21 funding cuts

The Conventional Prompt Strike program -- the Navy and Army project to field an intermediate-range offensive hypersonic weapon by 2025 and 2023 respectively -- remains "on track" despite a nearly 40% funding cut imposed a few weeks ago to the Navy's $1 billion request in the fiscal year 2021 defense appropriations bill, according to a senior Navy official
—————————————————
Just the beginning of the cuts I’m afraid.
 

Bhurki

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
158
Reaction score
103
Can someone compile length, diameter, weight, range of all of the hypersonic missiles concerned with this thread?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,675
Reaction score
1,714
From Inside Defense pay site


SSP director: CPS program remains 'on track' despite FY-21 funding cuts

The Conventional Prompt Strike program -- the Navy and Army project to field an intermediate-range offensive hypersonic weapon by 2025 and 2023 respectively -- remains "on track" despite a nearly 40% funding cut imposed a few weeks ago to the Navy's $1 billion request in the fiscal year 2021 defense appropriations bill, according to a senior Navy official
—————————————————
Just the beginning of the cuts I’m afraid.
Funding cuts? I thought those were "imaginary". Hmmm.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,968
Reaction score
1,583
It's a stupid assessment of Hypersonics. Again, comparing those new weapons, like any other, in a static environment sketched in the past doesn't help.
Effectively, if both armies are standing each one in front of the other within a stabilized tactical situation where everyone enjoy perfect awareness of the movements etc... Etc... Time critical situations have no meanings. Better to bring back the Maginot line...

Now try to imagine a dynamic situation where both opponents manoeuvre at the scale of a continent with forces on one side on short supply in manpower, then time and range become an effector.
For example, instead of having to move an artillery unit in a zone close to 100 miles of your frontline operation every day, you can have a ship, offshore firing Hypersonics terminally guided shells 500 miles away that allows you to support a variety of units without the burden of a multitude of logistical train. And cut drastically the cost of your war effort.

Being deprived of Hypersonic tomorrow would be like it was sustaining your mechanized infantry with horses and carts yesterday.
 
Last edited:

TMA1

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
11
Reaction score
6

interesting! new hypersonic weapons' are no gimmick. that said I agree with something they said in that paper that hypersonics are misunderstood in a way. we have had hypersonic weapons for awhile. we have had maneuvering reentry packages in development for decades. many tactical and strategic missiles have been developed to follow non ballistic trajectories for a long while. the term hypersonics is a bit misleading I think.

anyways I surely hope we dont take a weak or avoiding stance towards the new hypersonic weapons our enemies are developing, and I surely hope we done underestimate the capabilities of our enemies. Russia and especially China are extremely powerful and sadly in the last decade or two we have faltered in many areas as we turned into a global police and peacekeeping force.
 

Bhurki

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
158
Reaction score
103
6LbFbw-Z-624x912.jpg

Is this image of the LRHW accurate in terms of relative dimensions?

Because it comes up a lot shorter than would be expected for the range its required to provide.

Length is ~ 7m if diameter is 0.88m
Screenshot_20210212-133740~2.png

Also,

Screenshot_20210212-134406~2.png

Or is it missing a stage in each of these?
 
Last edited:

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
1,536
Isn’t it very similar to the Polaris A3? 34 ft long could carry 3 nukes 4600km. With the single glide body probably lighter payload range would increase accordingly.

 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
647
Reaction score
285
Polaris was a lot wider and would have had a dramatically greater volume of fuel. That said, I can't speak knowledgably to the range or length of CPS. Where did the second image come from that seems to depict a full up round being test fired? I've definitely never seen it before.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,675
Reaction score
1,714
Polaris was a lot wider and would have had a dramatically greater volume of fuel. That said, I can't speak knowledgably to the range or length of CPS. Where did the second image come from that seems to depict a full up round being test fired? I've definitely never seen it before.

Which "second image" are you referring to? :confused:
 

Bhurki

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
158
Reaction score
103
View attachment 650552

Or is it missing a stage in each of these?

This image. I've not seen it before; not sure what is depicted.
My bad.
Its been plastered across all articles about LRHW test launch from last year.

The image is originally from 2011 AHW (Advanced Hypersonic Weapon) test.
It flew 3700 km.
The warhead (HGB) it carried is identical to the one proposed for IRCPS and LRHW.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,265
Reaction score
274
LRHW / CPS AUR has not yet flown in its operational configuration. Those flights, IIRC, are expected to happen this year (I believe this summer) and into next year (or it could be next year) starting with the Navy and then the Army. What is the range it is "expected to provide"? Has an official range been shared by either the Navy or Army? In general terms, they've described the current flight experiments as "more than 2,000 nm" but I don't remember seeing specific threshold and objective range figures for the CPS/LRHW.
 
Last edited:

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
647
Reaction score
285
View attachment 650552

Or is it missing a stage in each of these?

This image. I've not seen it before; not sure what is depicted.
My bad.
Its been plastered across all articles about LRHW test launch from last year.

The image is originally from 2011 AHW (Advanced Hypersonic Weapon) test.
It flew 3700 km.
The warhead (HGB) it carried is identical to the one proposed for IRCPS and LRHW.

Thanks, I was wondering if the image was recent and represented the first AUP or not. I had thought the AHW used some flavor of an old Polaris missile, but perhaps I’m swapping the tests in my mind. CPS looks like it will be a smaller booster than the one uses in the 2017 test.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,265
Reaction score
274
Did they ever state that the 2000+ nm AHW test was a max range shot for that booster and BGV combo?
 

zen

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 15, 2007
Messages
2,197
Reaction score
885
34.5" diameter is closer to Pershing....
Though I'd expect the silo to be larger.
 

Bhurki

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jul 16, 2020
Messages
158
Reaction score
103
View attachment 650552

Or is it missing a stage in each of these?

This image. I've not seen it before; not sure what is depicted.
My bad.
Its been plastered across all articles about LRHW test launch from last year.

The image is originally from 2011 AHW (Advanced Hypersonic Weapon) test.
It flew 3700 km.
The warhead (HGB) it carried is identical to the one proposed for IRCPS and LRHW.

Thanks, I was wondering if the image was recent and represented the first AUP or not. I had thought the AHW used some flavor of an old Polaris missile, but perhaps I’m swapping the tests in my mind. CPS looks like it will be a smaller booster than the one uses in the 2017 test.
The same was also used for March 2020 test.
c-hgb-top.jpg

Can someone identify this rocket stack's dimensions? It is said to be dual stage.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
1,536
 

Similar threads

Top