Current US hypersonic weapons projects. (General)

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
955
Reaction score
589
Still seems like a larger less expensive hull would be a better platform rather than the expense of ripping those ships open for just a dozen missiles, but eh whatever.
 

Ronny

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
494
Reaction score
267
Logically speaking, wouldn't it make more sense to equip DDG-51 with CGS ?since we have more of those ship?
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
955
Reaction score
589
Not remotely, because CPS has far more deck penetration. The Zoomies only make sense because they have a lot of space deep below for the complex ammo handling system that the canons would have used; a Mk41 has nothing like the necessary deck penetration. Again, dedicated large cheap hulls is a better idea rather than shoe horning only a dozen weapons into an already over priced hull onto only three ships. But at least the Zooms probably have the sufficient volume in terms of depth; a Burke couldn't hope to accommodate a weapon of that size without a redesign that would be hopelessly impractical.
 

aonestudio

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
414
Reaction score
823

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,181
Reaction score
2,712
Far more likely, tungsten ballast. IIRC both the X-43 and X-51 had big chunks of it upfront.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
955
Reaction score
589
It also isn't an unlike candidate for what little warhead they have. Space would be at premium but momentum would be plentiful. I suspect both gliders have only a tiny bursting charge for a warhead against soft targets. The ballast is probably incorporated into the kill mechanism, I'd imagine.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,181
Reaction score
2,712
It also isn't an unlike candidate for what little warhead they have. Space would be at premium but momentum would be plentiful. I suspect both gliders have only a tiny bursting charge for a warhead against soft targets. The ballast is probably incorporated into the kill mechanism, I'd imagine.
In the case of these vehicles the shape would not be ideal for purely penetration purposes but the density would help it rip through a ship say.

1624022643061.png
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
955
Reaction score
589
It probably wouldn't be deep bunker buster but I bet if you just kept the entire airframe intact it could easily go through a hardened aircraft shelter. Given a few pounds of HE, you could probably make a convincing shrapnel pattern against a soft target. But I honestly haven't heard anyone discuss what the TBG or SWERVE gliders would actually deliver warhead wise. The new normal, especially for USAF, is tight lips (can't say I blame them - I just got used to the US spilling everything post Cold War). I'm just spit balling; I've no information on how these systems' kill mechanism would work.
 

aonestudio

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 11, 2018
Messages
414
Reaction score
823

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,480
Reaction score
527
They make cromulent points about the test program not living up to DoD's timeline and thus increasing risk that early-batch missiles could require additional work to overcome issues the testing reveals.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,181
Reaction score
2,712
They make cromulent points about the test program not living up to DoD's timeline and thus increasing risk that early-batch missiles could require additional work to overcome issues the testing reveals.
Gutting it will surely fix things.
 

blane.c

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Dec 21, 2020
Messages
1
Reaction score
2
From 2012, mach 20 discussion begins about 5 minutes into the video.

 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,480
Reaction score
527
They make cromulent points about the test program not living up to DoD's timeline and thus increasing risk that early-batch missiles could require additional work to overcome issues the testing reveals.
Gutting it will surely fix things.
Cutting from 12 LRIP missiles to 8 in a single year's buy is gutting it? We want the Legislature to stay involved and exercise its oversight powers, but we also don't want them micromanaging. Given the problematic schedule slip in the testing program, the House chose a credible course of action to reduce potential overruns and ding the DoD for their program management issues.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,181
Reaction score
2,712
They make cromulent points about the test program not living up to DoD's timeline and thus increasing risk that early-batch missiles could require additional work to overcome issues the testing reveals.
Gutting it will surely fix things.
Cutting from 12 LRIP missiles to 8 in a single year's buy is gutting it? We want the Legislature to stay involved and exercise its oversight powers, but we also don't want them micromanaging. Given the problematic schedule slip in the testing program, the House chose a credible course of action to reduce potential overruns and ding the DoD for their program management issues.
Step 2: "OMG the cost is going up", because NRE is the same whether you buy 8 or 12.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,061
Reaction score
2,411
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,480
Reaction score
527
They make cromulent points about the test program not living up to DoD's timeline and thus increasing risk that early-batch missiles could require additional work to overcome issues the testing reveals.
Gutting it will surely fix things.
Cutting from 12 LRIP missiles to 8 in a single year's buy is gutting it? We want the Legislature to stay involved and exercise its oversight powers, but we also don't want them micromanaging. Given the problematic schedule slip in the testing program, the House chose a credible course of action to reduce potential overruns and ding the DoD for their program management issues.
Step 2: "OMG the cost is going up", because NRE is the same whether you buy 8 or 12.
Might be more accurate to say "NRE is increasing whether you buy 8 or 12," but I see your point. That said, the potential for concurrency problems arising from the test schedule slippage which has already occurred, let alone that which may still happen, is plenty real. Trimming 4 missiles from an LRIP batch is a lot more a shot across the bow than it is a shotgun to the face.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,181
Reaction score
2,712
They make cromulent points about the test program not living up to DoD's timeline and thus increasing risk that early-batch missiles could require additional work to overcome issues the testing reveals.
Gutting it will surely fix things.
Cutting from 12 LRIP missiles to 8 in a single year's buy is gutting it? We want the Legislature to stay involved and exercise its oversight powers, but we also don't want them micromanaging. Given the problematic schedule slip in the testing program, the House chose a credible course of action to reduce potential overruns and ding the DoD for their program management issues.
Step 2: "OMG the cost is going up", because NRE is the same whether you buy 8 or 12.
Might be more accurate to say "NRE is increasing whether you buy 8 or 12," but I see your point. That said, the potential for concurrency problems arising from the test schedule slippage which has already occurred, let alone that which may still happen, is plenty real. Trimming 4 missiles from an LRIP batch is a lot more a shot across the bow than it is a shotgun to the face.
"Concurrency" has become a swear word pushed by the media. It used to happen ALL THE TIME. That's how they stood up the Minuteman force so fast. Is there risk? Obviously. That's what happens when you wait until the house is on fire before buying insurance. You have two choices: take 20 years to do anything or accept more risk and MAYBE get something when you need it.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,395
Reaction score
550
They make cromulent points about the test program not living up to DoD's timeline and thus increasing risk that early-batch missiles could require additional work to overcome issues the testing reveals.
Gutting it will surely fix things.
Cutting from 12 LRIP missiles to 8 in a single year's buy is gutting it? We want the Legislature to stay involved and exercise its oversight powers, but we also don't want them micromanaging. Given the problematic schedule slip in the testing program, the House chose a credible course of action to reduce potential overruns and ding the DoD for their program management issues.

Yes this is the correct take. Lots of talk and little movement in testing means that Congress is going to fund something that is working while still supporting the program (ARRW) as it goes through its testing. We know this because the House fully funded the R&D account for it as per what the USAF requested (so it supports the program, but not buying before flying). It specifically cited the delays in testing and the potential of that to introduce concurrency risk in case they begin building prototype weapons without completing significant portion of the testing. It's not like they reduced procurement overall, they actually added back a bunch of USAF acquisition cuts.

From the article posted earlier:

But the report applauds the Air Force's work "to keep the committee informed of the progress of ARRW flight testing." It goes on to direct the Air Force secretary to provide notice to congressional defense committees within a month after the first all-up-round test to communicate results and state whether those results support a decision to begin procuring the first lot of missiles.

Lawmakers noted the prototyping effort aims to provide up to four missiles as its early operational capability. They also provided flexibility for the service to buy additional missiles should dollars be left over from testing.

"Should the prototyping flight tests result in minimal discoveries, rendering the budgeted funds for engineering change orders excess to need, the committee supports the use of these funds to procure missiles above the eight funded in this recommendation by utilizing buy-to-budget authority," the report said.

The ARRW failed to fire from a B-52 after facing a problem during its first flight test April 5. Despite that, a service spokesman later that month told Inside Defense the missiles were still on track to begin production in FY-22 as planned.

Given the ARRW has not, so far (based on open source info), been successful in testing, it needs support for R&D, which the House has fully backed. $44 Million off a procurement request isn't gutting the program. They'll have another look once the USAF completes testing and comes back. You aren't building any sort of capability buying prototype weapons so at some point the USAF would have to complete testing and transition to a formal program of record and budget for a longer term acquisition plan and inventory and how they will pay for dozens of weapons a year in terms of the weapons in its portfolio that compete for funding.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top