Current US hypersonic weapons projects. (General)

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.
At 3km/s, whatever solid warhead you have packs its own weight in TNT equivalent due to kinetic energy.

To borrow the quote from Mass Effect: "Sir. Isaac. Newton. Is the deadliest sumbitch in the galaxy!"
 
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.
Because I was also trying to pack more than 2-3 of those per plane. Though a Strike Eagle is a cheaper mothership than a B52 if you're only carrying two ARRWs...
 
Solidworks. I did it years ago with some other ones I've posted before.

I looked up SolidWorks and aside from looking like it's interesting to use I suppose that it's a horribly expensive software package to buy especially if you want to use it for personal use? Any other software packages you could recommend? I use a Mac not a PC.
 
MAKO is LM's LOSING bid for SiAW. In which the winner, Northrop Grumman's SIAW is based on AARGM-ER which from all unofficial sources NG's AARGM-ER/SIAW reaches and sustains most way to target Mach 4+ speeds(max standoff ranges it drops to mach~2-3...).
I feel people are mistakenly praising the MAKO "Hypersonic" missile(guarantee it was never designed with that in mind) when the NG option clearly impressed DoD more for the cost..!
 
Even China has had stuff like this for years. CM-400AKG

View attachment 725084
As have we, HARM...
And now AARGM-ER/SIAW...
Which the MAKO from LM was the losing bid to NG for SiAW. Being essentially an copy of AARGM-ER with Tri-mode (likely)seeker to hit moving targets on land and sea...
Also does the CM-400AKG have an cockpit programmable warhead enabling the pilot to pick and choose which Target he's attacking and what type of effects on target he want's? Can he switch from attacking an locked-in GPS coordinate bunker position, to locating then tracking and targeting a moving ship at sea via only it's radar emissions and no targeting data while communicating and coordinating with other CM-400AKG missiles in the area?
If your answer is yes, then you've got an excellent point but if not then you're just talking trash really...
 
It could be similar to the unitary warhead they made for the CPS, or CAV (IIRC).

View attachment 725330
LRHW and CPS are using a different RV entirely. SWERVE based AFAIK. So the warhead should be a lot bigger. The original Pershing II SWERVE warhead was ~600lb, and the overall RV assembly was ~1,500lb. I suspect modern electronics will take a significant chunk out of the weight from the guidance and radar assembly, allowing the missile to be slightly smaller than a Pershing II, while having better range.


Although roughly the same size as previous versions, the Pershing II’s range was increased to 1,500 miles
 
Last edited:
the lockheed guy's quote is very informative. It's a true hypersonic missile (not thru a ballistic trajectory) that can maneuver within that speed regime.
I think that's why the range was relatively low at 350km, it will likely be powered the whole way in a relatively flat trajectory, rather than a minimum energy ballistic one.
 
MAKO is LM's LOSING bid for SiAW. In which the winner, Northrop Grumman's SIAW is based on AARGM-ER which from all unofficial sources NG's AARGM-ER/SIAW reaches and sustains most way to target Mach 4+ speeds(max standoff ranges it drops to mach~2-3...).
I don’t think AARGM-ER can sustain most ways to target at Mach 4+ speed unless the distance is extremely short. AARGM-ER diameter should allow it to carry at most 50% more propellant than AARGM/HARM but it still a rocket nontheless.
AARGM/HARM doesn't seem to be very fast, especially at long range

@38:44, agm-88 HARM need 3.5 minutes to travel 40 miles, average speed around Mach 1.03 at long range
@1:24:10, agm-88 HARM need 15 seconds to travel 9 miles, average speed around Mach 3.2 at short range
 
Okay, length guesstimates for LRHW. I make it at least 10m based on this:

Assumptions:
1.8 large squares = 2m based on personnel height.
Tube starts 2.4-2.5 large squares off the ground, maybe it starts sooner, hard to tell. My guess where it starts it based on second drawing, which is an artists impression, so dodgy.
Tube is about 9-9.2 large squares up but is on a slant, so at least 9 squares or 5x1.8 squares, so 5 x 2m. = 10m minimum.

1713019612843.png 1713019403092.png
 
Last edited:
LRHW and CPS are using a different RV entirely. SWERVE based AFAIK. So the warhead should be a lot bigger. The original Pershing II SWERVE warhead was ~600lb, and the overall RV assembly was ~1,500lb. I suspect modern electronics will take a significant chunk out of the weight from the guidance and radar assembly, allowing the missile to be slightly smaller than a Pershing II, while having better range.

C-HGB may be around 1200lb.


“HCSW weighs 12,000 lb. and the front end is about 10% of that,” White says. “So you have to figure out, OK, what can I fit on a B-52?”


And the HCSW use the C-HGB, which is the same as LRHW/ CPS.
 
Also does the CM-400AKG have an cockpit programmable warhead enabling the pilot to pick and choose which Target he's attacking and what type of effects on target he want's?
I don’t think current AARGM-ER have programmable warhead either
Can he switch from attacking an locked-in GPS coordinate bunker position, to locating then tracking and targeting a moving ship at sea via only it's radar emissions and no targeting data
CM-400AKG allegedly have both active radar seeker, passive radar seeker and IIR/TV sensor, so to be honest in that sense, it seem to be better tha AARGM-ER

while communicating and coordinating with other CM-400AKG missiles in the area?
I don’t think CM-400AKG can do that, but neither is AARGM-ER, the two way datalink on AARGM-ER is only for final stage BDA
 
C-HGB may be around 1200lb.


“HCSW weighs 12,000 lb. and the front end is about 10% of that,” White says. “So you have to figure out, OK, what can I fit on a B-52?”


And the HCSW use the C-HGB, which is the same as LRHW/ CPS.
Link is behind paywall. No mind, turns out great wall of pay is not present in Asia:

Okay, so on Pershing II the guidance, control and radar plus body weighed ~900lb with late '70s electronics, but modern electronics could likely bring that down to 400lb, so maybe the warhead will weigh 800lb, assuming front end weight includes the same stuff.

Does LRHW/CPS have terminal homing, or is it purely GPS/inertial?

I don’t think current AARGM-ER have programmable warhead either
Even AARGM does.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCBs1IEk9Fc&t=210s
 
Defense Updates has just put out a video about LM's Mako proposal:


Lockheed Martin, in collaboration with defense company CoAspire, revealed a new weapon at this week’s Sea Air Space 2024 exposition.
The company unveiled the Mako, a previously unseen air-launched hypersonic missile.The missile is being pitched to the U.S. Navy and Air Force.
At the CoAspire booth, a mockup of the Mako missile was displayed alongside graphics illustrating its integration with the F-35 Lightning II.
The name “Mako” is derived from the fastest shark in the sea.
In this video, Defense Updates analyses why Mako could be a game changer for the US military?
Chapters:
00:11 INTRODUCTION
03:00 SPECIFICATIONS
04:28 COMPATIBILITY
 
what edge though? This is just catching up to China/Russia/etc., so as far as I'm aware it's certainly not retaining the edge; and those fielded by others are more impressive than what the Americans are currently studying anyway.
 
what edge though? This is just catching up to China/Russia/etc., so as far as I'm aware it's certainly not retaining the edge; and those fielded by others are more impressive than what the Americans are currently studying anyway.

I suspect the U.S. can still take the lead in scramjet weapons, with some work. HACM looks very promising from a mass production standpoint; the engine is 3D printed with no moving parts and the performance envelope seems to require minimal exotic materials, using the X-51 as an example. I could easily see the US producing these at rates similar to current subsonic weapons.
 
Last edited:

More or less. We do not have requirements for either program, but they both appear to be air breathing hypersonic cruise missiles launched from tactical aircraft. HALO however is explicitly anti ship, where as HACM is just broadly “attack”. It is not clear how much overlap they will have target wise, though I would guess HALO could hit a land target and HACM will have an anti ship capability at some point.
 
View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1789651467730571713

Some interesting information on HALO (I think). 3,000m/s @ 25km altitude, that be Mach 10 (a little over Mach 1 = 298m/s at that altitude), 1,700m/s at S/L, that's Mach 5 at impact, ouch. Looks like the missile will cruise at a significantly reduced speed for much of the flight though before final 200km.

View: https://x.com/AirPowerNEW1/status/1789668290979082632

This seems to provide some overall guidance on the range of US hypersonics.
CBO found that hypersonic missiles with sufficient ranges for A2/AD scenarios—at least 1,000 kilometers (km), or about 600 miles, for missiles launched from aircraft and at least 3,000 km, or about 1,900 miles, for missiles launched from the ground or sea—have the speed to be useful in the early stages of a conflict with a near-peer adversary.
 
Last edited:
Defense Updates has just uploaded a video about a Japan/US glide phase interceptor missile to be designed and built in this joint venture:


As per May 15 statements from both the U.S. Missile Defense Agency and Japan’s Defense Ministry, the United States and Japan signed a cooperative agreement to jointly a hypersonic missile defense capability.
The interceptor will be designed to neutralize hypersonic threats in the glide phase of flight.
The project was initially agreed between Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and U.S. President Joe Biden at their summit last August and reaffirmed between the leaders during Kishida’s April visit to Washington.
In this video, Defense Updates reports on the US-Japan joint development of a Glide Phase Interceptor.
Chapters:
00:11 INTRODUCTION
01:39 HYPERSONIC WEAPONS
04:01 GLIDE PHASE INTERCEPTOR
05:04 JOINT VENTURE
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom