Current US hypersonic weapons projects. (General)

stealthflanker

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
963
Reaction score
851
I think the only way they'll get the cost down is to buy more. Everybody is tooled up for composite/aluminum/titanium structures. Don't know how much industry bandwidth there is for all the high-temp materials they'll need. Just for example, the RATTLRS airframe was a titanium airframe made at a smaller company (Klune). HyFly used a giant titanium casting for it's body.

Yep.. they should buy more.. and in fact.. that's the best and proven way to get things cheaper.

86722582_10215925611997490_4643021137746329600_n.jpg
 

RavenOne

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
460
Reaction score
782
First fielding at Joint Base Lewis-McChord
size0-full.jpg



Delivery of the hardware began in March 2021 and finished at the end of September 2021. The delivery includes a battery operations center, four transporter erector launchers, and modified trucks and trailers that make up the LRHW ground equipment.

Cheers
 

seruriermarshal

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
1,101
Reaction score
336
USA. Hypersonic Weapon Component Tests. Army: Three Successful Attempts

October 21, 2021

The US Army conducted prototype testing of hypersonic weapons components on Wednesday, the Pentagon said. As added, three attempts were successful. A few days ago, the British Financial Times reported that in August China launched a hypersonic missile capable of carrying nuclear weapons.

 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,586
Reaction score
872
Silly attempts to link this to the Chinese tests. It has been known for a while that as Glide body and other component production transitions from Sandia to Dynetics, under the supervision of Sandia, that initial components will be tested before being certified. This is probably that. The next glide body test will be the last before the first AUR test, two of which should happen this fiscal year and one the next prior to LRHW being declared operational.

 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,586
Reaction score
872
Silly attempts to link this to the Chinese tests.
Well, it could actually accelerate the schedule)
How and why? The next four tests have already been announced and three of those four will be conducted by the first operational battery that just begun new equipment training this Monday. Once those three AUR tests conclude, and assuming they are successfull, the first battery will be declared operational. Most of that stuff in terms of equipment purchase, training, delivery dates for testing and back up test window are pretty firm with little room to accelerate. Those dates and back up windows were probably firmed up months ago.
 
Last edited:

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,586
Reaction score
872

seruriermarshal

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
1,101
Reaction score
336
From thedrive.com

Updated 6:20 PM EST:

U.S. Navy Lieutenant Command Tim Gorman, a Pentagon spokesperson, has provided the following statement regarding today's failed test:

On Oct. 21, the Department of Defense conducted a data collection experiment from the Pacific Spaceport Complex-Alaska, Kodiak, AK, to inform the department’s hypersonic technology development. The test did not occur as planned due to a failure of the booster stack. The booster stack used in the test was not part of the hypersonic program and is not related to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body. The missile booster is used for testing purposes only. Program officials have initiated a review to determine the cause of the booster system failure to inform future tests. Experiments and tests – both successful and unsuccessful – are the backbone of developing highly complex, critical technologies at tremendous speed, as the department is doing with hypersonic technologies. Delivering hypersonic weapons remains a top priority, and the department remains confident that it is on track to field offensive hypersonic capabilities beginning in the early 2020s. This flight test is part of an ongoing series of flight tests as we continue to develop this technology.

From this statement, it remains unclear whether whatever this missile was actually left the launch pad. We still don't know exactly what the reason for the booster stack's failure was, either.

In addition, this statement raises questions about exactly what was under test today, especially if it is entirely unrelated to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB). This C-HGB is the boost glide vehicle that will be used on Army and Navy's common hypersonic missile.

It is possible that this could have been a test of something entirely new, which may not even necessarily be a weapon system. That it might not be related to Dark Eagle or IRCPS would also fit with the apparent expected range of the test that we had already noted.

 

trose213

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jul 29, 2018
Messages
299
Reaction score
149
In addition, this statement raises questions about exactly what was under test today, especially if it is entirely unrelated to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB). This C-HGB is the boost glide vehicle that will be used on Army and Navy's common hypersonic missile.

It is possible that this could have been a test of something entirely new, which may not even necessarily be a weapon system. That it might not be related to Dark Eagle or IRCPS would also fit with the apparent expected range of the test that we had already noted.
So something black?
 

seruriermarshal

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
1,101
Reaction score
336
In addition, this statement raises questions about exactly what was under test today, especially if it is entirely unrelated to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB). This C-HGB is the boost glide vehicle that will be used on Army and Navy's common hypersonic missile.

It is possible that this could have been a test of something entirely new, which may not even necessarily be a weapon system. That it might not be related to Dark Eagle or IRCPS would also fit with the apparent expected range of the test that we had already noted.
So something black?
I think they test a new booster that in black program .
 

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,509
Reaction score
1,706
From thedrive.com

Updated 6:20 PM EST:

U.S. Navy Lieutenant Command Tim Gorman, a Pentagon spokesperson, has provided the following statement regarding today's failed test:

On Oct. 21, the Department of Defense conducted a data collection experiment from the Pacific Spaceport Complex-Alaska, Kodiak, AK, to inform the department’s hypersonic technology development. The test did not occur as planned due to a failure of the booster stack. The booster stack used in the test was not part of the hypersonic program and is not related to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body. The missile booster is used for testing purposes only. Program officials have initiated a review to determine the cause of the booster system failure to inform future tests. Experiments and tests – both successful and unsuccessful – are the backbone of developing highly complex, critical technologies at tremendous speed, as the department is doing with hypersonic technologies. Delivering hypersonic weapons remains a top priority, and the department remains confident that it is on track to field offensive hypersonic capabilities beginning in the early 2020s. This flight test is part of an ongoing series of flight tests as we continue to develop this technology.

From this statement, it remains unclear whether whatever this missile was actually left the launch pad. We still don't know exactly what the reason for the booster stack's failure was, either.

In addition, this statement raises questions about exactly what was under test today, especially if it is entirely unrelated to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB). This C-HGB is the boost glide vehicle that will be used on Army and Navy's common hypersonic missile.

If you're referring to "The booster stack used in the test was not part of the hypersonic program and is not related to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body." that's perfectly consistent with the C-HGB being under test, they just weren't lofting it with the booster planned for operational use. Most likely culprit would be whatever they're using for BMD testing (though not Black Sparrow as that's air-launched) as that's consistent with "The missile booster is used for testing purposes only."
 

seruriermarshal

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
1,101
Reaction score
336

If you're referring to "The booster stack used in the test was not part of the hypersonic program and is not related to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body." that's perfectly consistent with the C-HGB being under test, they just weren't lofting it with the booster planned for operational use. Most likely culprit would be whatever they're using for BMD testing (though not Black Sparrow as that's air-launched) as that's consistent with "The missile booster is used for testing purposes only."

For DARPA Glide Breaker ?
 

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,509
Reaction score
1,706

If you're referring to "The booster stack used in the test was not part of the hypersonic program and is not related to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body." that's perfectly consistent with the C-HGB being under test, they just weren't lofting it with the booster planned for operational use. Most likely culprit would be whatever they're using for BMD testing (though not Black Sparrow as that's air-launched) as that's consistent with "The missile booster is used for testing purposes only."

For DARPA Glide Breaker ?
Never even heard of that one. All the test needs is a booster to get the CHGB up to speed before it cuts it loose and you can use anything in the inventory that's powerful enough for that. And the various targets for BMD trials are probably in the right size and performance range.
 

seruriermarshal

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
1,101
Reaction score
336

If you're referring to "The booster stack used in the test was not part of the hypersonic program and is not related to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body." that's perfectly consistent with the C-HGB being under test, they just weren't lofting it with the booster planned for operational use. Most likely culprit would be whatever they're using for BMD testing (though not Black Sparrow as that's air-launched) as that's consistent with "The missile booster is used for testing purposes only."

For DARPA Glide Breaker ?
Never even heard of that one. All the test needs is a booster to get the CHGB up to speed before it cuts it loose and you can use anything in the inventory that's powerful enough for that. And the various targets for BMD trials are probably in the right size and performance range.
Probably a Hypersonic target for Glide Breaker ? It need a new booster.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,586
Reaction score
872
Why would it be Glide Breaker or anything like that? There was an intermediate test planned in-between the experimental testing of the hypersonic glide body, and the AUR testing that will begin in a couple of months. This was probably related to the LRHW/CPS program and likely a test of the glide body using the booster that they've used for the FE's and not the two stage system that they recently ground tested for the AURs. The booster was launched but failed soon after. And this was likely a test of the glider so it will be interesting to see whether they attempt to repeat it or just add an additional AUR test to cover that aspect.
 

seruriermarshal

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
1,101
Reaction score
336
Why would it be Glide Breaker or anything like that? There was an intermediate test planned in-between the experimental testing of the hypersonic glide body, and the AUR testing that will begin in a couple of months. This was probably related to the LRHW/CPS program and likely a test of the glide body using the booster that they've used for the FE's and not the two stage system that they recently ground tested for the AURs. The booster was launched but failed soon after. And this was likely a test of the glider so it will be interesting to see whether they attempt to repeat it or just add an additional AUR test to cover that aspect.
But from the news "is not related to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body"
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,586
Reaction score
872
Why would it be Glide Breaker or anything like that? There was an intermediate test planned in-between the experimental testing of the hypersonic glide body, and the AUR testing that will begin in a couple of months. This was probably related to the LRHW/CPS program and likely a test of the glide body using the booster that they've used for the FE's and not the two stage system that they recently ground tested for the AURs. The booster was launched but failed soon after. And this was likely a test of the glider so it will be interesting to see whether they attempt to repeat it or just add an additional AUR test to cover that aspect.
But from the news "is not related to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body"
The failure was not due the glide body. The booster that failed soon after launch was not related to the LRHW/CPS program.
 

dark sidius

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Aug 1, 2008
Messages
492
Reaction score
74
Where is the problem ? a lot of failed at each time in the hypersonic technology , Arrw test failed , this time with another system failed, for now the only test with success is the Northrop /Raytheon airbreather.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,586
Reaction score
872
Where is the problem ? a lot of failed at each time in the hypersonic technology , Arrw test failed , this time with another system failed, for now the only test with success is the Northrop /Raytheon airbreather.

The FE tests (the last two) of the C-HGB have also been successful included the one testing for accuracy. They will be doing an AUR test in a couple of months time, and then another before the end of this fiscal year, and the last one (prior to EOC) in the next FY. This was not a weapon test as was initially erroneously reported but an experimental firing using an unrelated booster so there's likely minimal impact on the two programs.

When you are rapidly moving towards a fielding goal, your most accelerated deliverables are probably the riskiest things and we know in some of these cases the booster, and the integration was the one that was accelerated to meet aggressive timelines (the LRHW had 4 years to go from decision to EOC, and the ARRW a very similar timeline) so it isn't surprising that in the case of the ARRW, they may have to go back and fix a few things before resuming flight testing. In contrast, the glide bodies or scramjet technologies have been in development longer with a better laid out path to transition.

Both stages of the LRHW/CPS common booster setup were ground fired successfully including the thrust vectoring system used in the second stage. If this test was JFC-1 then this would have been concerning as a failed booster would have probably added a years worth fo delay to the program. But they haven't yet flown the booster and the three tests prior to fielding will put the AUR through its paces so the timelines should hold for now.

 
Last edited:

DWG

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
1,509
Reaction score
1,706
But from the news "is not related to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body"

"The booster stack used in the test was not part of the hypersonic program and is not related to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body."

That's specifically talking about the booster, not the payload, and it specifially excludes it from being part of hypersonic development.

The press-release says to me that the booster wasn't the one planned for the C-HGB AUR, or any hypersonic programme, but the payload was still C-HGB. When you're running tests like this you keep them as specific as possible to narrow down the variables. Combining tests of the payload from one development programme and a booster from another wouldn't make sense - too many variables, too many chances for failure.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,586
Reaction score
872
 

Attachments

  • OpFires_LM_DARPA.jpg
    OpFires_LM_DARPA.jpg
    183.1 KB · Views: 27

Similar threads

Top