Current US hypersonic weapons projects. (General)

IMHO, it is not important that it would be regarded as Fancy Modern Hypersonic or not.

Recent US concentrates on out-numbering modest performance.

If it reach its target with reasonable react time and size, US says JUST OK
 
asVAL said:
Also if this is 13ft long and 13in in dia shouldn't it fit in Harpoon canisters nicely?
Click to expand...
Yes, it should. Though it'll need a bigger booster than what's under a Harpoon to get it up to aircraft launch speed.

Edit: Nevermind, the Harpoon booster should be enough to get the Mako up to nearly 300m/s, if not more!
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
Though it'll need a bigger booster than what's under a Harpoon to get it up to aircraft launch speed.
Click to expand...

Given the weight of the Mako (1,300Lb) and its' diameter (13") the A/B44G-2 or -3 solid-fueled rocket (12000lb thrust for 2.9 sec) used by the R/UGM-84 Harpoon should fit the bill for a launch booster.
 
NMaude said:
Given the weight of the Mako (1,300Lb) and its' diameter (13") the A/B44G-2 or -3 solid-fueled rocket (12000lb thrust for 2.9 sec) used by the R/UGM-84 Harpoon should fit the bill for a launch booster.
Click to expand...
A modernised version of it (to tick all IM requierments and may improving it would do it even better).
 
asVAL said:
Mako is air launched PrSM? Now we are turning full circle back to air launched ATACMS.
To quote a famed SDF user:

Also if this is 13ft long and 13in in dia shouldn't it fit in Harpoon canisters nicely?
Click to expand...
PrSM is 17in diameter (430mm), so I guess it isn't PrSM-based, which does seem like a missed opportunity. At 13" (330mm), this is sort of a 'special beef' version of AARGM-ER rather than something completely new and misses an opprtunity for commonality. Should still be very effective though and probably cheaper than an ALPrSM.

www.twz.com

The Lowdown On Lockheed’s Newly Revealed Mako Hypersonic Missile

Mako is an interesting weapon with compelling features, and may offer clues as to the capabilities of a similar weapon the USAF is procuring.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

1712916354853.png
1712916384544.png

As for a naval version, this makes more sense:

www.navalnews.com

Should the U.S. Navy Adopt Precision Strike Missiles for the Mark 41 VLS? - Naval News

Naval News asked naval military analysts what are their thoughts on if the U.S. Navy should adopt the U.S Army’s Precision Strike Missile aboard their AEGIS warships equipped with the Mark 41 VLS.
www.navalnews.com www.navalnews.com
 
Last edited:
NMaude said:
Given the weight of the Mako (1,300Lb) and its' diameter (13") the A/B44G-2 or -3 solid-fueled rocket (12000lb thrust for 2.9 sec) used by the R/UGM-84 Harpoon should fit the bill for a launch booster.
Click to expand...
Huh, didn't realize that the Harpoon booster was that beefy, that's 9.2gees for not quite 3sec. Oops, need weight of the booster before I can do that math...

Still, it should be enough to get the Mako up to 300m/s, which is close enough to the air launch speed.
 
Scott Kenny said:
By weight, it should be able to carry 2x, one under each CFT. It may also be able to carry one on each wing since it can carry 5000lb bombs on the wing pylons.
Click to expand...

I’ve never seen a reliable mass given for ARRW, though I presume 5000-7000 lbs. Would rule out the CFTs and possibly even the wing stations, unless on the low end of that. There’s also issues of total weight, clearance, and seperation. IMO, realistically only 1 or 2, and possibly even none. And likely with some severe range limits, given drag and weight.

Then you have to factor in how practical such a deployment would be - do you want to place a weapon you only bought in the dozens in Japan? Can you provide enough in flight refueling from Guam? Are you going to be able to launch a relevant number of missiles for the target set?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Huh, didn't realize that the Harpoon booster was that beefy, that's 9.2gees for not quite 3sec. Oops, need weight of the booster before I can do that math...
Click to expand...

So taking into account the booster's weight what was the launch acceleration you calculated?
 
litzj said:
IMHO, it is not important that it would be regarded as Fancy Modern Hypersonic or not.

Recent US concentrates on out-numbering modest performance.

If it reach its target with reasonable react time and size, US says JUST OK
Click to expand...

Yes, this is more the strategy. Mako is just a different flavor of stand in attack munition, which is itself more or less a high speed anti radiation missile minus the passive RF and with a wider target set. Perhaps burn out speed is >mach5, but calling it “hypersonic” is just cashing in on a buzz word: its average speed is probably much slower except at the shortest of ranges. But moving at a high supersonic speed is still dramatically more responsive and harder to intercept.
 
Josh_TN said:
Perhaps burn out speed is >mach5, but calling it “hypersonic” is just cashing in on a buzz word: its average speed is probably much slower except at the shortest of ranges. But moving at a high supersonic speed is still dramatically more responsive and harder to intercept.
Click to expand...

The question is does the Mako have a single, dual or triple pulse SRM?
 
Josh_TN said:
I’ve never seen a reliable mass given for ARRW, though I presume 5000-7000 lbs. Would rule out the CFTs and possibly even the wing stations, unless on the low end of that. There’s also issues of total weight, clearance, and seperation. IMO, realistically only 1 or 2, and possibly even none. And likely with some severe range limits, given drag and weight.

Then you have to factor in how practical such a deployment would be - do you want to place a weapon you only bought in the dozens in Japan? Can you provide enough in flight refueling from Guam? Are you going to be able to launch a relevant number of missiles for the target set?
Click to expand...
You know that the CFTs can hold 6,000lbs on the lower rack, right? 3x 2000lb bombs can fit there. I think the upper CFT rack can only carry 3x1000lb bombs, but the lower racks can carry 2000lbers.


NMaude said:
So taking into account the booster's weight what was the launch acceleration you calculated?
Click to expand...
7.36gee. It's a pretty light booster, only 360lbs. Having issues crunching the acceleration via online calculators (new phone data plan is not working the way I want it to...), but IIRC the first second of accel you travel half the distance, the second second you cover 1.5x, and the 3rd second you'd cover 2.5x. Makes for a burnout speed of about 300m/s.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Having issues crunching the acceleration via online calculators (new phone data plan is not working the way I want it to...), but IIRC the first second of accel you travel half the distance, the second second you cover 1.5x, and the 3rd second you'd cover 2.5x.
Click to expand...

Which mathematical equations did you use?

Scott Kenny said:
I don't expect more than dual pulse of initial boost and sustain.
Click to expand...

So like the Lockheed SR75-LP-1 two stage solid-fuel rocket motor used in the AGM-69A SRAM?
 
Well SiAW probaly has the cost advantage. As long as a good part of it and AARGM-ER are the same its cheaper. After all if lets say 60% is the same then that 60% gets mutch more mass produced which can lead to lower cost for it. A important part today but also uprades can be standardised over both fleets as long there part of the 60%.
 
NMaude said:
The question is does the Mako have a single, dual or triple pulse SRM?
Click to expand...

I cannot imagine it has more than one pulse. Multiple pulses are usually used to engage airborne targets; if you are firing at a ground target it seems to me you just want a single pulse with dual grain.
 
NMaude said:
Which mathematical equations did you use?
Click to expand...
Online calculators, which weren't loading correctly and were slow as hell.

So I went to the old ugly variation on falling speeds. Now that I think about it, that booster should start out at the 7 gees number and increase acceleration as the solid fuel burns out till it's a bit short of the 9 gees number. So that guesstimate of speed at burnout is low.


NMaude said:
So like the Lockheed SR75-LP-1 two stage solid-fuel rocket motor used in the AGM-69A SRAM?
Click to expand...
Yes. That's the type of rocket I expect. I'd hope for that plus a terminal pulse, assuming that the missile coasts at some point in flight.
 
175lb made it much a do about nothing anyway. I hadn't noticed the warhead was that light before. What is the HACM warhead weight? Please don't say it's the same. You can barely injure a tea cup with that.
 
Well if it is 175 lbs of tungsten, then presumably the impact provides most of the energy, with perhaps a small charge to fragment the glider for soft targets. This is what I meant by the weapon having a limited target set; the glider volume and diameter had to be incredibly small to fit the footprint of that missile.
 
Forest Green said:
175lb made it much a do about nothing anyway. I hadn't noticed the warhead was that light before. What is the HACM warhead weight? Please don't say it's the same. You can barely injure a tea cup with that.
Click to expand...
Would punch a nice hole in a silo lid. Or the deck of a ship.
 
sferrin said:
Would punch a nice hole in a silo lid. Or the deck of a ship.
Click to expand...
And shred anything thats not under a decent cover.

That pretty similar to the Warhead use in the Cluster replacements for the GMLRS and those shred stuff within a 20 meter circle thats not a MBT.

And even those get their noggin rung like a bell.

For anti ship work if it has a Delay Fusing?

That will tear the guts out of most ships.
 
NMaude said:
Given the weight of the Mako (1,300Lb) and its' diameter (13") the A/B44G-2 or -3 solid-fueled rocket (12000lb thrust for 2.9 sec) used by the R/UGM-84 Harpoon should fit the bill for a launch booster.
Click to expand...
Back when PrSM was still 13.5" dia. With Harpoon booster. Yes, it would fit in an F-35.

1712948631006.png
 
Forest Green said:
175lb made it much a do about nothing anyway. I hadn't noticed the warhead was that light before. What is the HACM warhead weight? Please don't say it's the same. You can barely injure a tea cup with that.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the payload is anemic. Which is the problem with these HBGVs. What good are they, actually? You're going to spend $15 million for a missile with a 175lb warhead, just because it will take 2 minutes off the fight time? HACM can't be much bigger, as the size/weight constraints limit the payload size that the propellant can adequately propel to the desired velocities. I wouldn't be surprised if HACM's warhead was half the weight of ARRW.
 
Josh_TN said:
Well if it is 175 lbs of tungsten, then presumably the impact provides most of the energy, with perhaps a small charge to fragment the glider for soft targets. This is what I meant by the weapon having a limited target set; the glider volume and diameter had to be incredibly small to fit the footprint of that missile.
Click to expand...
It could be similar to the unitary warhead they made for the CPS, or CAV (IIRC).

CAV-HTV-CSM-Warhead.jpg
 
CastAway said:
Yeah, the payload is anemic. Which is the problem with these HBGVs. What good are they, actually? You're going to spend $15 million for a missile with a 175lb warhead, just because it will take 2 minutes off the fight time? HACM can't be much bigger, as the size/weight constraints limit the payload size that the propellant can adequately propel to the desired velocities. I wouldn't be surprised if HACM's warhead was half the weight of ARRW.
Click to expand...

HACM however would have the advantages of likely being far less expensive, rather lighter and carried in more numbers, and having a peak speed not much greater than a BVR AAM or high performance strategic SAM. An air breathing missile works up to Mach 5; a booster/glider does double digits of Mach while losing energy at a log rate and has to tolerate all of the heat involved in the process. X-51 was just made of steel, aluminum, and titanium, with a little bit of space shuttle tiles on the nose.
 
Scott Kenny said:
You know that the CFTs can hold 6,000lbs on the lower rack, right? 3x 2000lb bombs can fit there. I think the upper CFT rack can only carry 3x1000lb bombs, but the lower racks can carry 2000lbers.
Click to expand...

Each of the 3 lower CFT racks (BRU-47/A) can in theory carry 5000 lbs. But in practise, 2 heavy stores at the same time is the maximum you can physically fit, and the heaviest single store cleared is probably the 2250 lbs JASSM. No actual weight limit that I could find, but I don't think the lower CFT stations are cleared for more than 2500 lbs.
The really heavy stuff like GBU-28, GBU-72 or ARRW has to go under the wing or centerline stations, rated for 5000 lbs each.
 
eagle said:
Each of the 3 lower CFT racks (BRU-47/A) can in theory carry 5000 lbs. But in practise, 2 heavy stores at the same time is the maximum you can physically fit, and the heaviest single store cleared is probably the 2250 lbs JASSM. No actual weight limit that I could find, but I don't think the lower CFT stations are cleared for more than 2500 lbs.
The really heavy stuff like GBU-28, GBU-72 or ARRW has to go under the wing or centerline stations, rated for 5000 lbs each.
Click to expand...
I was assuming mounting the big round on the middle position, and being able to spread that load across the entire BRU structurally speaking. ARRW may be too large in diameter to safely load there or on the centerline, however.
 
For the Mako do wonder if need Supersonic kick launch like the Kintze does from the Mig31.

Or can you in theory drop the thing from a 130 hardpoint or the Army Valor?


Cause if you can that be one HELL of a party trick to spread out the fun.
 
The advantage of speed, even with a light warhead, is the ability to hit targets of opportunity. Say, an S-400
NMaude said:
Nice! Which software package do you use to make this drawing?
Click to expand...
Solidworks. I did it years ago with some other ones I've posted before. Having looked at it again, after all this time, I'm wondering where I got the 13.5" dia from. Not sure that was accurate. Still, this missile would fit in a Harpoon canister or in an F-35.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I was assuming mounting the big round on the middle position, and being able to spread that load across the entire BRU structurally speaking. ARRW may be too large in diameter to safely load there or on the centerline, however.
Click to expand...
You mean spread the load across more than one station? That is not going to work without a special adapter/CFT redesign.
But a moot point anyway because it most likely won't fit around the landing gear and there's already 3 heavy stations available so why bother.

Here's how it works with a Blue Sparrow missile.
Or with a HyFly missile.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom