Current US hypersonic weapons projects. (General)

totoro said:
Why is common hypersonic glide body warhead using a double conical design with 4 large fins, which is a symmetrical design.
And the agm183 arrw warhead uses a flat body assymetrical design with two wingtips and no fins?
What are the advatanges and disadvantages of each design?
Click to expand...

The biconical glide body is less efficient (more drag) because it has to maintain a higher angle of attack to generate lift. It is apparently easier to construct (or possibly model) and was designed in 80’s as part of the DARPA SWERVE project. It was a lower risk glider that could be rushed into service. The USAF equivalent was to be HCSW. The other glider was from the much more recent DARPA Tactical Boost Glide program and has superior performance, but was less mature technically. Congress forced the USAF to consolidate to a single hypersonic glider weapon program and they went for the higher risk TBG based system which was apparently smaller and lighter weight, allowing more to carried (presumably HCSW was large enough only one could be carried per B52 HSAB). The USAF also has the HACM program long term, and it seems that the much lower weight/cost of scramjets is where USAF would rather be - enthusiam for AGM-183 seems lukewarm. The US Army and USN stuck with the biconic glider to reduce risk.
 
Josh_TN said:
totoro said:
Why is common hypersonic glide body warhead using a double conical design with 4 large fins, which is a symmetrical design.
And the agm183 arrw warhead uses a flat body assymetrical design with two wingtips and no fins?
What are the advatanges and disadvantages of each design?
Click to expand...

The biconical glide body is less efficient (more drag) because it has to maintain a higher angle of attack to generate lift. It is apparently easier to construct (or possibly model) and was designed in 80’s as part of the DARPA SWERVE project. It was a lower risk glider that could be rushed into service. The USAF equivalent was to be HCSW. The other glider was from the much more recent DARPA Tactical Boost Glide program and has superior performance, but was less mature technically. Congress forced the USAF to consolidate to a single hypersonic glider weapon program and they went for the higher risk TBG based system which was apparently smaller and lighter weight, allowing more to carried (presumably HCSW was large enough only one could be carried per B52 HSAB). The USAF also has the HACM program long term, and it seems that the much lower weight/cost of scramjets is where USAF would rather be - enthusiam for AGM-183 seems lukewarm. The US Army and USN stuck with the biconic glider to reduce risk.
Click to expand...
Also warhead/packing volume. I remember seeing the brochure for ARRW and it has a pretty small warhead.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1164990693518929920
View: https://twitter.com/masao_dahlgren/status/1164990693518929920?
thin gliders have very little volume to work with.
 
NASA said:
Josh_TN said:
Possible IR-CPS test?

www.thedrive.com

Mysterious Launch Out Of Cape Canaveral Appears Imminent (Updated)

All signs point to an imminent test launch of an exotic system, possibly of the hypersonic variety, from Cape Canaveral Space Force Station.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com
Click to expand...
Most likely LRHW. JFC-2 and 3 need to take place soon.
Click to expand...

Ah, well I meant the same thing; same missile. But yes this probably would be specifically an Army sponsered test from their ground launcher.

EDIT: Joint test, but fired from the army launcher.
 
Last edited:
sattrackcam.blogspot.com

Another Hypersonic glider test (likely AGM-183A ARRW) upcoming, in the Pacific

classified military Space (spy satellites) and Missiles
sattrackcam.blogspot.com sattrackcam.blogspot.com

"Last weekend saw a scrubbed Hypersonic Missile test from Cape Canaveral, Florida (see a previous post). It looks that another Hypersonic Missile test is upcoming next week, this time in the Pacific in front of California. Lines of evidence point to this Pacific test being another test of the hypersonic AGM-183 ARRW."
Click to expand...

sattrackcam.blogspot.com

A possible (hypersonic?) missile test from Cape Canaveral [UPDATED]

classified military Space (spy satellites) and Missiles
sattrackcam.blogspot.com sattrackcam.blogspot.com

"An odd Navigational Warning, NAVAREA IV 221/23 (text of warning below, areas mapped above), was published on March 1, suggesting a launch from Cape Canaveral with a time window from March 2 tot March 6. The jury is still out on what it is, although opinions are converging on a missile test, possibly a test of the hypersonic LHRW."
Click to expand...
 
The U.S. Department of Defense selected Hypersonix Launch Systems, an Australian aerospace company, to develop a high-speed aircraft that can test hypersonic technologies.
www.c4isrnet.com

Pentagon chooses Australian firm to build hypersonic test aircraft

The aircraft, which will support efforts to increase the cadence of hypersonic flight testing, is scheduled to fly for the first time in early 2024.
www.c4isrnet.com www.c4isrnet.com
 
paralay said:
NMaude said:
But how successful was the test?
Click to expand...
1. Broke away from the plane
2 .....
3. Fell to the ground or into the water

two of the three items were completed successfully
Click to expand...

IIRC even one of the failed booster tests was labeled as partially successful in some of its goals, so the above seems realistic. I hope the booster at least lit this time around. It is disappointing after the last successful test; I'd thought they'd finally ironed out the issues. Hopefully it was a separation or post separation issue and at least the booster is working as intended now.
 
"WASHINGTON — The U.S. Air Force’s March 13 test of a hypersonic weapon was “not a success,” the service secretary told lawmakers Tuesday.

Frank Kendall indicated the Lockheed Martin-made AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon program may be in jeopardy. The service, he said, is “more committed to HACM [the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile, the service’s other major hypersonic weapon program] at this point in time than we are to ARRW.”"

my9JW9.gif
 
Isn't ARRW supposed to be the 'safe, simple, soon' option? If HACM is proceeding better anyways, might as well go all in with that.
 
skyblue said:
Isn't ARRW supposed to be the 'safe, simple, soon' option? If HACM is proceeding better anyways, might as well go all in with that.
Click to expand...

ARRW was the rapid capability project that was still relatively high risk. You might be thinking of HCSW, which used the SWERVE glider like the Army and Navy. Congress thought producing both was redundant and forced them to choose one. They went with AGM-183 (vice -182) with the DARPA TBG glider because it was smaller/lighter and more can be carried on a B-52 (four vs presumably two).

The USAF is having cold feet now because ARRW costs ~$30 million even when/if it works. The air breathing HACW weapons demo program ended up making a lot more progress comparatively and the USAF is eager to adopt the HACM missile that will be based on it. HACM likely will cost a small fraction of ARRW, be much faster to produce, and be small/light enough to be carried by tactical aircraft.

The biggest problem with dumping AGM-183 is the capability gap until HACM becomes available. But it seems unlikely that more than a few dozens would be purchased even if the program goes forward.
 
NMaude said:
sferrin said:
Quitting isn't the way to figure this out. I can't believe this has to be said. Our government is pathetic.
Click to expand...

The problem with hypersonic research in the US is the start-stop, start-stop, start-stop to programmes and funding, what they need is a long-term research programmes with consistent funding.
Click to expand...
Yep. These idiots seem to think if they cancel a program and wait ten years that next time there won't be any problems.
 
seapowermagazine.org

Navy moves forward with hypersonic, carrier-based weapon - Seapower

Release from Naval Air Systems Command ***** Mar 28, 2023 NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND, Patuxent River, Md. — The Navy awarded two contracts to Raytheon Missiles and Defense and Lockheed Martin March 27 for the initial development for a carrier suitable...
seapowermagazine.org seapowermagazine.org
 
www.army.mil

1st Multi-Domain Task Force deploys the Army’s first Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon system

JOINT BASE LEWIS-MCCHORD, Wash. — In her keynote address at the 2021 annual meeting and exposition of the Association of the United States Army, Secreta...
www.army.mil www.army.mil
In February, the 1st Multi-Domain Task Force (1st MDTF) long-range fires battalion, 5th Battalion, 3rd Field Artillery Regiment (5-3 LRFB), deployed the Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) system over 3,100 miles from Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington to Cape Canaveral, Florida during Thunderbolt Strike, a full rehearsal of expeditionary hypersonic launch capabilities.
Click to expand...
LRHW1.jpg
LRHW2.jpg
 
Last edited:
For a second I thought they actually launched it. Nope. Just flew the trailer to another location for a photo op.
 
NMaude said:
sferrin said:
Quitting isn't the way to figure this out. I can't believe this has to be said. Our government is pathetic.
Click to expand...

The problem with hypersonic research in the US is the start-stop, start-stop, start-stop to programmes and funding, what they need is a long-term research programmes with consistent funding.
Click to expand...

This is not the case with the current cancellation. The DARPA and AFRL "research" program into boost glide system (TBG) concluded and was completed after fully funding it for nearly a decade. Likewise, the Air Force is going to fully fund the R&D portion of its ARRW obligation as it asked to do under its MTA authority and ask to Congress. So we have had a steady stream of funding to design, build and now test this class of weapon. The Air Force just does not want to take it into production and seems to prefer to put money into the scramjet side of the house for reasons pertaining to cost, capability and flexibility to deploy on more platforms. So it isn't as much a case of dedicating funding and sticking through the technologies development, but one of prioritization and trying to balance the short, medium and long term needs of the munitions portfolio. The earlier case of launching a small S&T program, failing and then cancelling the entire thing is not being currently repeated. On TBG/ARRW the entire DARPA/AFRL and USAF effort was funded and despite failures both big and small, they continued to fund the development and testing to what was originally planned. This steady stream of commitment is important and needs to be maintained but not all of the mid tier acquisition efforts will make the leap into production which is kind of the point of these accelerated R&D and prototyping efforts.

The other two services are fully committed to funding one hypersonic program each through development and production with the CPS and LRHW efforts. I think overalll, we will have these three efforts (CPS, HACM & similar Navy weapon, and LRHW) as winners so about 3 of five systems will make it through the various R&D and development hoops and into production. Out of the two DARPA efforts, one will make through which is about what you would expect from high risk / high tech programs. HAWC --> SCIFiRE ---> HACM and other SCiFIRE like systems. The only difference from what was envisioned five or so years ago is that the Air Force will now be the last service to field hypersonic weapon capability as opposed to the first which it planned to do with ARRW. Instead of fielding that in 2022/2023 it will now only field this capability in the late 2020s or about five years later, and ramp that up in the 2030s. The Army and Navy will begin fielding in the coming months/years and will have the industrial capability to ramp it up this decade. Overall, this is a huge difference from where each service was just a decade ago when they had no plans to field any meaningful capability in this class.
 
Last edited:
You look at something like BGRV, which was a complete success but then found not needed, and it leaves a completely different impression than a string of idiotic failures followed by cancellation. Not to mention BGRV was far more capable and accomplished over half a century ago. Difficult not to be cynical.
 
^^ Yes absolutely. But those mistakes and shortsighted decisions are not being repeated in the sense that we are learning from failures and going back and testing and following through on all planned development and testing. The isolated case of ARRW involves the service deciding not to pursue production which is not a guarantee for any mid-tier acquisition rapid prototyping program and thus is dependent on what the service's acquisition folks thing is needed within a budget and future years plan. Even when it was failing, the service never diverted R&D funding or scaled back its testing. They actually moved money from planned procurement to beef up development and testing. The same for DARPA before it since it funded both its hypersonic programs for an additional 2 or so years given delays and learnings. This is very much a case of starting out with 5-6 programs and seeing 2-3 through into actual production and hopefully buying those at some scale needed for this weapon class.
 
Last edited:
Didn't know where to share these, but the MDA seems to be working on a HTV-2 target.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20230403_192801.jpg
    IMG_20230403_192801.jpg
    333.2 KB · Views: 17
  • IMG_20230403_193138.jpg
    IMG_20230403_193138.jpg
    152.4 KB · Views: 16

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom