Current US hypersonic weapons projects. (General)

bring_it_on said:
bobbymike said:
Forest Green said:
I don't understand how SpaceX can have 3 successful space launches in one weekend, but the ARRW booster won't light and the CPS/LRHW booster fails after launch. It almost looks like the contractors are deliberately failing to make more money, because this much accidental failure is impossible.
Click to expand...
Very disconcerting to say the least. US better ramp up testing ASAP. Hypersonic Czar??
Click to expand...

How will that fix anything? How about not putting all your operational prototypes with one contractor next time as a start. What will also help is not taking your most complex operational prototyping programs (that you've never managed to put out operationally) and putting them through an accelerated development (simpler programs are probably better candidates for that accelerated development and fielding - at least as you figure this out). PrSM seems to be doing just fine and is running a few months ahead while all these "rapid prototypes" with "residual combat capability" seem to be the ones not doing that great. At this point I'm glad they moved SM-6 1B from that rapid prototyping effort to a more traditional acquisition path..

Ronny said:
ARRW and CPS probably super niche
Click to expand...
Which is what they are designed for. Niche weapons have a place and serve an important purpose even though they are acquired in smaller numbers compared to others.
Click to expand...
Ramp up - more contractors, more national laboratory work, more collaboration across the broadest spectrum of participants. In my view ramp up doesn’t mean accelerate in this case. I don’t want the same contractor doing things faster (failing faster) I want as many groups with potential technologies working in parallel on the problem.
 
bring_it_on said:
That's a good start. Currently, a single contractor is running the three (ARRW, LRHW, CPS) operational prototyping efforts as stupid as that sounds.
Click to expand...
Northrop Grumman and Raytheon are already involved in hypersonics. Who else would you have? Boeing? Their track record as of late isn't so hot. After that, who else is there?
 
My point was that we have awarded all contracts for accelerated operational prototype development to a single prime contractor. There are only 2 (3) operational prototyping programs currently in testing in ARRW, LRHW and Navy's IR-CPS. NG and Raytheon are not primes on either of them. Let's see if this changes with HACM and some other upcoming programs. Even the now cancelled/deferred HCSW was with the same prime. You are obviously taking some risk when you put all your eggs in one Prime's basket with such high-risk, and new systems.
 
Last edited:
EGLIN AIR FORCE BASE, Fla. - The Air Force conducted another successful hypersonic test off the Southern California coast on July 12, 2022. The Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon Booster Test Flight-3 was the 12th flight for the program and third release demonstration. The AGM-183A weapon system reached hypersonic speeds and primary and secondary objectives were met.
Click to expand...
www.eglin.af.mil

Air Force completes another successful hypersonic test

12th flight for the program and third release demonstration.
www.eglin.af.mil
second test success for ARRW. Seem like they capable of making it work only when the program life is on the line
 
The last test was a booster only test, and I suspect so was this one or they would have specified that the glide body reached hypersonic speed. From the vague description it looks like the *booster* reached hypersonic speed. Still, better than another failure.
 

Operational Fires Program Successfully Completes First Flight Test

DARPA program demonstrates novel ground-launched hypersonic missile system capability

7/13/2022

DARPA’s Operational Fires (OpFires) program has successfully executed its first flight test at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. The OpFires system achieved all test objectives, including first ever use of a U.S. Marine Corps (USMC) logistics truck as a medium-range missile launcher, missile canister egress, stable flight capture, and use of U.S. Army inventory artillery fire control systems to initiate the test mission. Lockheed Martin built the system, which includes a Northrup Grumman rocket motor, and conducted the test.

The test demonstrated integrated technology maturation of key enabling components including the first stage rocket motor, missile canister, and missile round pallet (MRP). The MRP is designed for use with the load handling system available on USMC and Army logistics vehicles, eliminating the need for a bespoke OpFires transporter erector launcher (TEL).

“This is a promising step toward a TEL on-demand capability for accurately firing medium-range missiles from highly agile, readily available logistics trucks that are already in both the U.S. Army and U.S. Marine Corps inventory,” said Lt. Col. Joshua Stults, the DARPA program manager for OpFires. “Our successful agile hardware development approach prioritizes full-scale flight testing that will inform further design maturation this year.”

he primary goal of OpFires is the development and demonstration of a ground-launched two-stage propulsive system capable of employing hypersonic (greater than five times the speed of sound) payloads from ubiquitous U.S. military trucks (the Palletized Load System family of vehicles) that can penetrate modern air defenses and precisely strike time-critical targets. Compatibility with existing command and control, vehicles, logistics infrastructure, and operating environments ensures that OpFires is highly mobile and rapidly deployable.

“The OpFires program is a great example of how DARPA, in partnership with industry, is helping the Department of Defense facilitate rapid development and testing of advanced hypersonic technologies to accelerate the delivery of transformational warfighting capabilities,” said Michael White, principal director for hypersonics in the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering.

The OpFires program will complete an integrated system critical design review in 2022.
Click to expand...
 
Isn't OpFires basically a ground-launched version of ARRW? They both use the same glider as far as I know. Speaking of gliders, isn't there a second glider being developed for ARRW? a bit hazy on what's going on there.

Either way 2 Successful hypersonic tests back to back is nice to hear. test test test and more tests is the game here. These were just booster tests and the real challenge will be seeing how the gliders do. But progress is progress.
 
Josh_TN said:
The last test was a booster only test, and I suspect so was this one or they would have specified that the glide body reached hypersonic speed. From the vague description it looks like the *booster* reached hypersonic speed. Still, better than another failure.
Click to expand...
This was in the article so “suspect” no more.

“The test successfully demonstrated booster performance expanding the operational envelope. We have now completed our booster test series and are ready to move forward to all-up-round testing later this year.”
 

Attachments

  • FD8E8209-2E30-4A83-A3FF-C07069EA17B0.jpeg
    FD8E8209-2E30-4A83-A3FF-C07069EA17B0.jpeg
    22.5 KB · Views: 24
14yellow14 said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1547300299848695812
View: https://twitter.com/space_osint/status/1547300299848695812
Click to expand...
So is OpFires LRHW or PrSM, or something different? Oh okay, I found it, it's an in between missile, 1,800km range.

breakingdefense.com

DARPA’s Hypersonic OpFires Aims For Army 1,000-Mile Missile - Breaking Defense

With ground tests this year and a full-up flight test in 2023, OpFires hopes to become the Army’s long-term solution for its Mid-Range Capability missile.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

LRHW will be bigger, faster, and longer-ranged than MRC, flying “thousands of kilometers” as opposed to 1,800 km (1,118 miles).
Click to expand...

1657785472084.png
 
Last edited:
Sevrent said:
Isn't OpFires basically a ground-launched version of ARRW? They both use the same glider as far as I know. Speaking of gliders, isn't there a second glider being developed for ARRW? a bit hazy on what's going on there.

Either way 2 Successful hypersonic tests back to back is nice to hear. test test test and more tests is the game here. These were just booster tests and the real challenge will be seeing how the gliders do. But progress is progress.
Click to expand...
recent progress isn't so bad
1.PNG
 
Sevrent said:
Isn't OpFires basically a ground-launched version of ARRW? They both use the same glider as far as I know. Speaking of gliders, isn't there a second glider being developed for ARRW? a bit hazy on what's going on there.

Either way 2 Successful hypersonic tests back to back is nice to hear. test test test and more tests is the game here. These were just booster tests and the real challenge will be seeing how the gliders do. But progress is progress.
Click to expand...
If ARRW was the same missile as OpFires, which has a range of 1,800km from the ground, then an air-launched version would surely have a range of a lot more than that???
 
OPFires I believe is a two stage missile that ultimately will use the TBG glide body, but I believe the main development effort is the second stage booster which involves a throttled solid rocket. Also I believe it’s a DARPA demonstrator not a weapons program; i think deployment of an existing glider from the booster is just a proof of concept exercise.
 
First stage only test so it did not flight test the throttable second stage and it appears they will not flight test that as part of the DARPA effort.

Sevrent said:
Isn't OpFires basically a ground-launched version of ARRW? They both use the same glider as far as I know. Speaking of gliders, isn't there a second glider being developed for ARRW? a bit hazy on what's going on there.

Either way 2 Successful hypersonic tests back to back is nice to hear. test test test and more tests is the game here. These were just booster tests and the real challenge will be seeing how the gliders do. But progress is progress.
Click to expand...

The "same as ARRW" is a bit of a stretch. It shares no booster tech with ARRW. It does share the TBG as envisioned by DARPA but that can change if it ever moves forward.

These two were booster tests so a bit stretch to call them Hypersonic tests though the booster test for ARRW was in preparation for the hypersonic AUR tests in December.

Its the end of the road for OpFires I suppose with no transition partner willing to include it in its FY-23 budget. It appears that they will not flight test the second stage or the integrated TBG glider (as was originally planned with a three flight test program).
 
If they don't fly the second stage, doesn't that mean the whole program just amounted to a standard booster test and nothing else? Basically, project failure?
 
They do have a second stage and have funded Aerojet to develop it. The entire weapon system will undergo a CDR before it wraps up. However, the flight test that we saw (ET-1) was there to prove out the launcher, basic design/egress etc, and first stage and the overall feasibility of the effort. This is not and was never an operational prototyping program. A transition partner would have to take the design work done by DARPA through Lockheed Martin, Dynetics, Orbital ATK, and Aerojet (second stage) and build operational protoypes for flight testing and fielding. As the DARPA effort sunsets at the end of this fiscal year, neither the USMC, nor the Army have funded a transition program. That said, Congress could well step in and add some funding in DARPA's FY23 budget to continue and go beyond just a CDR and build and demonstrate a AUR launch from its palletized launcher. But as things stand it will conclude by September after the reviews are complete.

In terms of maturity, by September, OpFires will essentially be at the same level as ARRW was in early-mid 2020 with the exception that some additional static and ground testing of the hardware would have happened and the glider would have been more matured through TBG and upcoming ARRW AUR flight testing. So hypothetically, if a service was interested, they could hope to field operational OpFires prototypes in about 3-4 years which is very rapid for the type of capability it offers. But there is no concrete plans with either the Army or USMC to take this program. USMC lacks funding for this sort of project and the Army is busy playing with its AUR-less LRHW launchers and the MRC with its subsonic TLAM capability.

Josh_TN said:
If they don't fly the second stage, doesn't that mean the whole program just amounted to a standard booster test and nothing else? Basically, project failure?
Click to expand...

Program is far from a failure (it looks like it will meet all its primary objectives). They build actual hardware, and designed a two stage hypersonic concept with a throttleable second stage and had multiple vendors compete for both of those. They also advanced the design of the actual integrated weapon system through PDR and by end of the program through CDR. Not to mention designing and demonstrating a palletized launching system compatible with existing Army and USMC trucks.
 
Last edited:
seruriermarshal said:
View attachment 681023
Click to expand...

bring_it_on said:
First stage only test so it did not flight test the throttable second stage and it appears they will not flight test that as part of the DARPA effort.

Sevrent said:
Isn't OpFires basically a ground-launched version of ARRW? They both use the same glider as far as I know. Speaking of gliders, isn't there a second glider being developed for ARRW? a bit hazy on what's going on there.

Either way 2 Successful hypersonic tests back to back is nice to hear. test test test and more tests is the game here. These were just booster tests and the real challenge will be seeing how the gliders do. But progress is progress.
Click to expand...


Its the end of the road for OpFires I suppose with no transition partner willing to include it in its FY-23 budget. It appears that they will not flight test the second stage or the integrated TBG glider (as was originally planned with a three flight test program).
Click to expand...
Typical. Spend time and money to develop something then stand there with their dicks in their hands and no plans.
 
^^ That happens often with DARPA run programs. There was never a point in time through the course of this program where a service stood up and put some real money behind being an OpFires transition partner so this was always a risky project. That said, it does give them an option in case one is interested and it also moves the needle on a ground launched hypersonic weapon with a different glider, warhead and target set compared to LRHW which looking at what they spent on it is not a bad achievement.
 
Was the second stage booster at least ground tested? I know DARPA doesn't actually support weapons projects (in most cases) but the fact that the project goals didn't include flight testing the booster design seems short sighted. Actually I wonder why they even considered what glider they would put on it; for their purposes a booster test would validate the relevant technology.
 
Forest Green said:
I don't understand how SpaceX can have 3 successful space launches in one weekend, but the ARRW booster won't light and the CPS/LRHW booster fails after launch. It almost looks like the contractors are deliberately failing to make more money, because this much accidental failure is impossible.
Click to expand...
...and Virgin Orbit too.
 

Attachments

  • vggal1_greg-robinson-virgin-orbit-promo.jpg
    vggal1_greg-robinson-virgin-orbit-promo.jpg
    39.6 KB · Views: 41
Contractors make little to no money (in the larger scheme of things) in the high risk development or competitive phase of a program. Purposefully failing tests, besides breaking the law, also delays production or risks program termination which risks production and sustainment dollars where they make nearly all their profits. Not to mention the impact on their stock. As a result of the couple of ARRW failures the DOD has zeroed out the FY-23 procurement funding and will wait until testing yields successes. That's already cost the contractors directly and indirectly by threatening program termination after the OTA period is complete..

At times the simplest explanation works.. This stuff is hard and humans at times make mistakes.
 
Last edited:
defence-blog.com

US Army gets one step closer to medium-range hypersonic missiles

The U.S. Army has moved a step closer to fielding the newest medium-range hypersonic missile system that can penetrate modern enemy air defenses and rapidly engage time-sensitive targets. According to a recent press release from the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the program...
defence-blog.com defence-blog.com
 
TomS said:
Josh_TN said:
I know DARPA doesn't actually support weapons projects (in most cases)
Click to expand...

I can think of quite a few recently. LRASM being only the most obvious.
Click to expand...

The Tactical Technology Office within DARPA focuses on tactical systems so only a small subset of the organization is involved in more near term relevant projects.

sferrin said:
One would think DARPA would focus their efforts on things the military might actually want to use were they to be successful.
Click to expand...

Its a fine line and a balance they have to strike. If all DARPA does is support what the services want then all they'll end up being is an extension of organizations within each service like the Army's future command, the service labs or other similar organizations. There is always friction between what the operator wants and what they get delivered. For example there is always disagreement with what the COCOMs thing they ought to be getting from the three services and what the services invest in in terms of modernization and sustainment. I bet OpFires will have a huge champion in the PACOM boss and not much support within the Army mainly because the idea wasn't born inside the Army even though the Army hardly has any capability to develop and rapidly field a brand new capability that it doesn't borrow from another service, OSD or allied country.

The tactical systems it invests resources in are often pushing the envelope of technology, advancing our engineering, design and sometimes production/mfg capabilities and providing real options for the services to exercise once proven out by DARPA. Sometime the transition is obvious and quick at other times the program remains orphaned and isn't picked up. Given the relative modest funding for DARPA, it is a good idea to get them the space to explore, invest in and advance technologies and capabilities independent of service support. Though obviously the organization is more heavily invested in long term strategic investments and tech development beyond near term tactical needs.
 
Last edited:
www.defensenews.com

Biden to sign Defense Production Act directives targeting hypersonics

Michael White, principal director for hypersonics in the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, said the presidential directives, which are “about to be signed,” would enable the Pentagon to invest Defense Production Act Title III funds to bolster the hypersonic...
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
I believe the previous successful test was said to be >300. Also the report I read said there was a failure previous to this success, which would be four of the half dozen planned. I’ll have to look up links when I’m near a PC.
 
I stand corrected. they used the same generic language around range on both their press releases.
 
bring_it_on said:
I stand corrected. they used the same generic language around range on both their press releases.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. I think I stand corrected on the failed test; it was a Reuters article that I can't find now or was updated. It might have been conflating HAWC tests with some other hypersonic test, seeing as how it was not an aerospace specific source.

EDIT: Raytheon seems to have taken the lead now with two back to back tests at over 300miles. The 1st test while successful merely stated the range was similar to X-51, which could imply a shorter range...or just a different style of press releases.
 
Its merely the order in which they are going. LM had a >300 nautical mile test in April so Raytheon was due next followed by another test from Lockheed probably this summer. The entire program is expected to end this fiscal year so they have just a couple of months to finish the three remaining flight tests unless they purposefully hold some back for the MoHAWC program that starts next year. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't finish up all their testing by September which is when the AF down selects its HACM team.
 
bring_it_on said:
Its merely the order in which they are going. LM had a >300 nautical mile test in April so Raytheon was due next followed by another test from Lockheed probably this summer. The entire program is expected to end this fiscal year so they have just a couple of months to finish the three remaining flight tests unless they purposefully hold some back for the MoHAWC program that starts next year. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't finish up all their testing by September which is when the AF down selects its HACM team.
Click to expand...
Has LM done two tests already yet? I thought they were the first successful test which would make the last two both Raytheon?

EDIT: I was mistaken, the first test was Raytheon on Sept 2021 with the second test in April being Lockmart. Both the most recent and April tests were described as over 65,000 feet, over mach 5, and over 300 miles.
</EDIT>

In any case the fact that there are two vendors that have successful tests, at least one of which twice, bodes well for the HACM program. Agree that they will want to finish testing before the down select. I think the HACM program will end up being large number of airframes over a long period of time, at least compared to B/G programs.
 
Last edited:
bring_it_on said:
Its merely the order in which they are going. LM had a >300 nautical mile test in April so Raytheon was due next followed by another test from Lockheed probably this summer. The entire program is expected to end this fiscal year so they have just a couple of months to finish the three remaining flight tests unless they purposefully hold some back for the MoHAWC program that starts next year. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't finish up all their testing by September which is when the AF down selects its HACM team.
Click to expand...
What about Boeing? They're in the mix too as I recall. (Don't know why though if they don't intend to fly hardware.)
 
sferrin said:
bring_it_on said:
Its merely the order in which they are going. LM had a >300 nautical mile test in April so Raytheon was due next followed by another test from Lockheed probably this summer. The entire program is expected to end this fiscal year so they have just a couple of months to finish the three remaining flight tests unless they purposefully hold some back for the MoHAWC program that starts next year. I wouldn't be surprised if they don't finish up all their testing by September which is when the AF down selects its HACM team.
Click to expand...
What about Boeing? They're in the mix too as I recall. (Don't know why though if they don't intend to fly hardware.)
Click to expand...
Boeing will advance its offering through preliminary design but it’s unlikely to go anywhere given they have no recent experience in this space and the fact that the other two have designed and flown their cruisers successfully
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom