Current US hypersonic weapons projects. (General)

bobbymike said:
From Inside Defense pay site


Navy to rip out DDG-1000 Advanced Gun System mounts to make room for hypersonic weapons​

The Navy plans to rip out the DDG-1000's Advanced Gun System mounts -- the original focus of the Zumwalt-class destroyer's offensive firepower -- to make room for a new vertical launch system that will fire Conventional Prompt Strike missiles, as part of a new goal that scraps five years of planning to field long-range hypersonic weapons on Ohio-class submarines
———-
Can’t we also put them on Ohio’s.....please?
Click to expand...
Given that even something like ARRW cost like 30 millions a piece, would it not make more sense to integrate hypersonic cruise missile instead ?
 
Ronny said:
bobbymike said:
From Inside Defense pay site


Navy to rip out DDG-1000 Advanced Gun System mounts to make room for hypersonic weapons​

The Navy plans to rip out the DDG-1000's Advanced Gun System mounts -- the original focus of the Zumwalt-class destroyer's offensive firepower -- to make room for a new vertical launch system that will fire Conventional Prompt Strike missiles, as part of a new goal that scraps five years of planning to field long-range hypersonic weapons on Ohio-class submarines
———-
Can’t we also put them on Ohio’s.....please?
Click to expand...
Given that even something like ARRW cost like 30 millions a piece, would it not make more sense to integrate hypersonic cruise missile instead ?
Click to expand...

What's the source of the 30 Million estimate? What production rates and objective inventories are we talking about that get the APUC to $30 MM?
 
www.navy.mil

Navy Tests New Hypersonic Rocket Motor

WASHINGTON - Navy Strategic Systems Programs (SSP) successfully conducted a test of the First Stage Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) on May 27th in Promontory, Utah as part of the development of the Navy’s
www.navy.mil

news.lockheedmartin.com

Lockheed Martin Successfully Tests Navy’s Hypersonic Strike System

PROMONTORY, Utah, May 27, 2021 –The Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) and Northrop Grumman (NYSE: NOC) team successfully conducted a significant live fire hypersonic strike system test in...
news.lockheedmartin.com news.lockheedmartin.com
 
Bhurki said:
bring_it_on said:
This is the Low Rate cost of a very small batch. Hard to see them not getting it to single digit millions per round at something resembling highish rate of production.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1398231045141639169
View: https://twitter.com/TheDEWLine/status/1398231045141639169
Click to expand...
It'll still be considered expensive at even half that cost.
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. It’s not a JASSM analogous. Neither one for the SiAW. In the broader scheme of air launched weapons it along with a possible conventional variant of the LRSO are going to be the two most expensive weapons which will be designed to tackle some of the toughest targets from stand off distance. Defeating those targets with cheaper weapons would possible entail risk and huge costs, not to mention that even if we could do it, the time critical aspect is the ARRW still won’t be replicated given the AF will have an all subsonic bomber fleet. ARRW is the most easily deployable hypersonic weapon we have given how rapidly bombers could deploy.
 
Josh_TN said:
I can’t tell if that’s good or bad news?
Click to expand...
Probably trying to get a foot in the door and ensure production funding before the other services propose something 'better' and the whole thing gets stuck in the rdte track.
 
Inside defense pay site

Biden administration endorses hypersonic weapon technology projects, proposes accelerated plan in FY-22 to buy, field​

The Biden administration is proposing a fiscal year 2022 budget that would accelerate hypersonic weapon technology projects, endorsing a plan crafted during the Trump administration that includes establishing two new-start hypersonic cruise missile programs -- one in the Air Force, one in the Navy -- to complement current Pentagon boost-glide vehicle projects in an effort to field an entire family of ultra-fast, maneuvering strike and counter-strike capabilities this decade
 
bobbymike said:
Inside defense pay site

Biden administration endorses hypersonic weapon technology projects, proposes accelerated plan in FY-22 to buy, field​

The Biden administration is proposing a fiscal year 2022 budget that would accelerate hypersonic weapon technology projects, endorsing a plan crafted during the Trump administration that includes establishing two new-start hypersonic cruise missile programs -- one in the Air Force, one in the Navy -- to complement current Pentagon boost-glide vehicle projects in an effort to field an entire family of ultra-fast, maneuvering strike and counter-strike capabilities this decade
Click to expand...
I would assume one of them is HACM and the other is OASuW-II ?
 

Navy plans to pack each DDG-1000 with 12 long-range hypersonic strike missiles​

The Navy is planning to outfit each of its three DDG-1000 destroyers with a dozen long-range hypersonic strike missiles, eyeing a new cold-launch system for the Zumwalt-class ship as part of a new plan to arm by 2025 a surface ship rather than a nuclear-powered guided missile submarine with the Conventional Prompt Strike weapon
——————-
Hoping for 120 each ;)
 
bobbymike said:

Navy plans to pack each DDG-1000 with 12 long-range hypersonic strike missiles​

The Navy is planning to outfit each of its three DDG-1000 destroyers with a dozen long-range hypersonic strike missiles, eyeing a new cold-launch system for the Zumwalt-class ship as part of a new plan to arm by 2025 a surface ship rather than a nuclear-powered guided missile submarine with the Conventional Prompt Strike weapon
——————-
Hoping for 120 each ;)
Click to expand...
If it's 12 and they're still looking at a Payload Tube spinoff, that means 4 tubes and (probably) no more guns forward. Questionable if HVP is part of the Navy's strategy....but on the other hand they seem to be killing that round so....
 
Still seems like a larger less expensive hull would be a better platform rather than the expense of ripping those ships open for just a dozen missiles, but eh whatever.
 
Logically speaking, wouldn't it make more sense to equip DDG-51 with CGS ?since we have more of those ship?
 
Not remotely, because CPS has far more deck penetration. The Zoomies only make sense because they have a lot of space deep below for the complex ammo handling system that the canons would have used; a Mk41 has nothing like the necessary deck penetration. Again, dedicated large cheap hulls is a better idea rather than shoe horning only a dozen weapons into an already over priced hull onto only three ships. But at least the Zooms probably have the sufficient volume in terms of depth; a Burke couldn't hope to accommodate a weapon of that size without a redesign that would be hopelessly impractical.
 
Far more likely, tungsten ballast. IIRC both the X-43 and X-51 had big chunks of it upfront.
 
It also isn't an unlike candidate for what little warhead they have. Space would be at premium but momentum would be plentiful. I suspect both gliders have only a tiny bursting charge for a warhead against soft targets. The ballast is probably incorporated into the kill mechanism, I'd imagine.
 
Josh_TN said:
It also isn't an unlike candidate for what little warhead they have. Space would be at premium but momentum would be plentiful. I suspect both gliders have only a tiny bursting charge for a warhead against soft targets. The ballast is probably incorporated into the kill mechanism, I'd imagine.
Click to expand...
In the case of these vehicles the shape would not be ideal for purely penetration purposes but the density would help it rip through a ship say.

1624022643061.png
 
It probably wouldn't be deep bunker buster but I bet if you just kept the entire airframe intact it could easily go through a hardened aircraft shelter. Given a few pounds of HE, you could probably make a convincing shrapnel pattern against a soft target. But I honestly haven't heard anyone discuss what the TBG or SWERVE gliders would actually deliver warhead wise. The new normal, especially for USAF, is tight lips (can't say I blame them - I just got used to the US spilling everything post Cold War). I'm just spit balling; I've no information on how these systems' kill mechanism would work.
 
They make cromulent points about the test program not living up to DoD's timeline and thus increasing risk that early-batch missiles could require additional work to overcome issues the testing reveals.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom