Current US hypersonic weapons projects. (General)


If you're referring to "The booster stack used in the test was not part of the hypersonic program and is not related to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body." that's perfectly consistent with the C-HGB being under test, they just weren't lofting it with the booster planned for operational use. Most likely culprit would be whatever they're using for BMD testing (though not Black Sparrow as that's air-launched) as that's consistent with "The missile booster is used for testing purposes only."

For DARPA Glide Breaker ?
Never even heard of that one. All the test needs is a booster to get the CHGB up to speed before it cuts it loose and you can use anything in the inventory that's powerful enough for that. And the various targets for BMD trials are probably in the right size and performance range.
Probably a Hypersonic target for Glide Breaker ? It need a new booster.
 
Why would it be Glide Breaker or anything like that? There was an intermediate test planned in-between the experimental testing of the hypersonic glide body, and the AUR testing that will begin in a couple of months. This was probably related to the LRHW/CPS program and likely a test of the glide body using the booster that they've used for the FE's and not the two stage system that they recently ground tested for the AURs. The booster was launched but failed soon after. And this was likely a test of the glider so it will be interesting to see whether they attempt to repeat it or just add an additional AUR test to cover that aspect.
 
Why would it be Glide Breaker or anything like that? There was an intermediate test planned in-between the experimental testing of the hypersonic glide body, and the AUR testing that will begin in a couple of months. This was probably related to the LRHW/CPS program and likely a test of the glide body using the booster that they've used for the FE's and not the two stage system that they recently ground tested for the AURs. The booster was launched but failed soon after. And this was likely a test of the glider so it will be interesting to see whether they attempt to repeat it or just add an additional AUR test to cover that aspect.
But from the news "is not related to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body"
 
Why would it be Glide Breaker or anything like that? There was an intermediate test planned in-between the experimental testing of the hypersonic glide body, and the AUR testing that will begin in a couple of months. This was probably related to the LRHW/CPS program and likely a test of the glide body using the booster that they've used for the FE's and not the two stage system that they recently ground tested for the AURs. The booster was launched but failed soon after. And this was likely a test of the glider so it will be interesting to see whether they attempt to repeat it or just add an additional AUR test to cover that aspect.
But from the news "is not related to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body"
The failure was not due the glide body. The booster that failed soon after launch was not related to the LRHW/CPS program.
 
Where is the problem ? a lot of failed at each time in the hypersonic technology , Arrw test failed , this time with another system failed, for now the only test with success is the Northrop /Raytheon airbreather.
 
Where is the problem ? a lot of failed at each time in the hypersonic technology , Arrw test failed , this time with another system failed, for now the only test with success is the Northrop /Raytheon airbreather.

The FE tests (the last two) of the C-HGB have also been successful included the one testing for accuracy. They will be doing an AUR test in a couple of months time, and then another before the end of this fiscal year, and the last one (prior to EOC) in the next FY. This was not a weapon test as was initially erroneously reported but an experimental firing using an unrelated booster so there's likely minimal impact on the two programs.

When you are rapidly moving towards a fielding goal, your most accelerated deliverables are probably the riskiest things and we know in some of these cases the booster, and the integration was the one that was accelerated to meet aggressive timelines (the LRHW had 4 years to go from decision to EOC, and the ARRW a very similar timeline) so it isn't surprising that in the case of the ARRW, they may have to go back and fix a few things before resuming flight testing. In contrast, the glide bodies or scramjet technologies have been in development longer with a better laid out path to transition.

Both stages of the LRHW/CPS common booster setup were ground fired successfully including the thrust vectoring system used in the second stage. If this test was JFC-1 then this would have been concerning as a failed booster would have probably added a years worth fo delay to the program. But they haven't yet flown the booster and the three tests prior to fielding will put the AUR through its paces so the timelines should hold for now.

 
Last edited:
But from the news "is not related to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body"

"The booster stack used in the test was not part of the hypersonic program and is not related to the Common Hypersonic Glide Body."

That's specifically talking about the booster, not the payload, and it specifially excludes it from being part of hypersonic development.

The press-release says to me that the booster wasn't the one planned for the C-HGB AUR, or any hypersonic programme, but the payload was still C-HGB. When you're running tests like this you keep them as specific as possible to narrow down the variables. Combining tests of the payload from one development programme and a booster from another wouldn't make sense - too many variables, too many chances for failure.
 
 

Attachments

  • OpFires_LM_DARPA.jpg
    OpFires_LM_DARPA.jpg
    183.1 KB · Views: 64
 
At least they are honest instead of pretending Tomahawk is enough
 
Tomahawk is more than adequate for most of the targets it is going to be used for both in terms of land attack, and maritime attack. It is highly reliable, accurate, and with upgrades has the ability to go after some of the moving maritime targets as well. It is the weapon you deploy in quantity and its great that the US Army is now also fielding it. It delivers a capability at a particular price point which makes it highly attractive when used in volume and paired with more expensive, higher performance systems. No one ever said that it is "enough". If that is what they thought the Navy wouldn't be investing in the rather substantial next gen strike weapon portfolio that it currently funds each year - from SM-6 IB, to IR-CPS, LRASM and probably a whole host of other classified longer term capability.
 
 
 
Wow, 88 seems like a vast number of test/development missiles for any US program. That would probably cover every SM-3/THAAD test ever performed with room to spare, and that represents a couple of the longest, most technically challenging missile programs the US has had.

Fair points all on the new weapon pushing the envelop and the Russians having different testing regimes.

That's just a programatic distinction not missiles specifically for developmental testing. Any production pre FY-25 is clubbed under the development phase, and post FY-25 into the production phase when the program will transition to more of a traditional acquisition program. Those "development phase" AUR's is what the Army and Navy will declare IOC with in FY23 and FY25 each.

As per the current plans, the Army will conduct 3 or 4 AUR tests prior to fielding. If and when a new increment of the AUR (the one with the seeker) is introduced, you can expect quite a few more shots against moving targets. That said, the Glider itself was tested independent of the AUR in the past so there is also that activity and test data. Between Army, Navy shots, and the pre AUR testing you can expect double digit tests before FOC is achieved. More if the seeker is integrated.

Yes this system is expensive (so are what the adversaries are fielding). Too bad it isn't cheap as a JDAM or Hellfire which is most of what we've stocked up on over the last few decades. A Pershing II adjusted for inflation would have cost close to $20 Million a pop. LRHW offers double the range, and a more survivable glide vehicle. An intermediate ranged hypersonic capability isn't cheap. Not for the US, not for China or Russia. It isn't cheap to defend against either. A few hundred LRHW/CPS will be needed. ARRW costs < half per AUR, and it is quite possible that something like HACM costs < half the cost of the ARRW. This will allow a mix of hypersonic options with range, payload, and performance against various targets.
 
Last edited:
Kendall noted that while the U.S. military has focused funds on Iraq and Afghanistan, it has taken its eye off the ball in terms of hypersonic weapons. "This isn't saying we've done nothing, but we haven't done enough," he said.

As the Pentagon enters the 2023 annual budget cycle, Kendall hopes to raise funds with the retirement of older and expensive-to-maintain systems in favor of new systems, including hypersonic development programs.


 
On one hand, I want to say the rhetoric about the US being behind is over-used but on the other, with virtually no major action being taken against China since President Biden took office, I would probably welcome a lot more rhetoric about concern for China and what America is doing to prepare.
 
I'd like to see you qualify that claim with regards to hypersonics.

Technologically speaking, the US is fine. In terms of deployable locations where it matters? That's going to be a strategically sensitive subject for the smaller neighboring countries who do business with Russia & China.
 
I'd like to see you qualify that claim with regards to hypersonics.

Technologically speaking, the US is fine. In terms of deployable locations where it matters? That's going to be a strategically sensitive subject for the smaller neighboring countries who do business with Russia & China.
The US is barely into testing with little in the way of industrial base and nothing in service. The same cannot be said of China, which has several systems actually in production and in service.
 
Technologically speaking, the US is fine.

Perhaps when you go into the labs. But as Sferrin said, they are behind China when it comes to demonstrating capability, and then migrating that into actual production. There is little to no production base at the moment for any sort of large scale (relatively speaking) production of these systems. We were supposed to ramp up to a test every 3-4 weeks by early 2021 and are nowhere close to that which shows that the test infra might not be where it needs to be either. Of course there is zero to show for in terms of an operational system while China is not only producing these but has them deployed already. Doesn't mean we can't leapfrog with our systems over the next decade or so but for that you need investment. The AF for example dedicates about 1-1.5% of its RDT&E budgets to hypersonics. That's not enough to make any large muscle movements let alone surpass a pacing threat that has overtaken the US in this department.
 
The US is barely into testing with little in the way of industrial base and nothing in service. The same cannot be said of China, which has several systems actually in production and in service.

For programs of record, sure. China operates a little differently and they have to make up a half century of hypersonic R&D. So it makes sense they are "hyper" testing and posturing with their progress/mock-ups. Everything's coming to form for the US however, and operational/capable/deadly platforms will be fielded before we know it, but where to put those Army batteries? That's a problem right now. There is strategic sensitivity surrounding theater focused hypersonic missiles.

And that's not to understate China's manufacturing capability or its industrial base, China has the US beat there, and will have it beat until Congress comes to its senses and makes it a national security priority. And that applies to the entirety of the defense sector.
 
Perhaps when you go into the labs. But as Sferrin said, they are behind China when it comes to demonstrating capability, and then migrating that into actual production. There is little to no production base at the moment for any sort of large scale (relatively speaking) production of these systems. We were supposed to ramp up to a test every 3-4 weeks by early 2021 and are nowhere close to that which shows that the test infra might not be where it needs to be either. Of course there is zero to show for in terms of an operational system while China is not only producing these but has them deployed already. Doesn't mean we can't leapfrog with our systems over the next decade or so but for that you need investment. The AF for example dedicates about 1-1.5% of its RDT&E budgets to hypersonics. That's not enough to make any large muscle movements let alone surpass a pacing threat that has overtaken the US in this department.

Generally speaking, US non-air breathing hypersonic missile development is a done deal and has been since forever, and you can make the same case for the glide/maneuverable vehicle options although some of that's been more recent (<20-30 years). China's new to most of that, as shown with its aggressive testing schedules and rush to fielding for the sake of posturing. They do get credit for their ability to mass produce given their entire industry's state-aligned focus and not getting caught up in the mire of "which political districts get a slice of the MIC pie".

Where are they at with air-breathing hypersonic weapons?

In terms of production, the argument that the US is not ramping up production is definitely one that needs to be addressed, and fast. China has no limitations to flipping factories or shipyards for the sake of national security needs, the US does not have that luxury anymore. But as always... politics.. and reigning in corporate america's gluttony for China are major hurdles to get over before that ball gets rolling. But I digress.
 
enerally speaking, US non-air breathing hypersonic missile development is a done deal and has been since forever, and you can make the same case for the glide/maneuverable vehicle options although some of that's been more recent (<20-30 years).

They just failed the last boost glide vehicle test. And the first BGV won't be fielded till 2023 and that too something like 3-4 missiles. China already fields these systems. So again, they're catching up. Catching up in terms of test successes, and catching up in terms of production base and operational fielding. Nothing else really matters. With air-breathing technologies we likely have a lead but then the services never wanted those until very recently. We should field the first scramjet weapon by 2026-2027. Russia will operationalize its (assuming Tsirkon is scramjet powered) next year or early 2023. Let's see when China operationalizes its system. No matter which way you cut it, they are trying to catch up. And not really investing at levels that will help overtake either Russia or China. So the best outcome based on current investment levels is to hope that we achieve parity by 2030 or so.

In terms of production, the argument that the US is not ramping up production is definitely one that needs to be addressed, and fast.

You can't ramp up production if what you have doesn't work or isn't tested to a degree that gives you enough confidence in testing to allow a production decision. And of course the industrial base has to be capable of producing. I believe Dynetics is still producing the initial glide bodies at Sandia. Only once they learn these will they begin producing these at their facility in Alabama. The booster on the ARRW hasn't been shown to work yet, and TBG hasn't flown either. So what exactly are they going to begin producing on that weapon system? The thing is that they can't move fast and operating under the OTA authority already means that they are going as fast as they possibly can. Will roper stated in 2018 that the ARRW needs to achieve EOC 36 months from contract award. We reached that milestone last month or earlier and they haven't even gotten its booster to work in flight testing.

They have to first succeed, and then show that they can re-produce that success through repeated testing. The level of hypersonic testing predicted just last year was supposed to be one test every three or so weeks. We are not even at half those levels yet so its quite likely that they are trying to overcome some setbacks in development (or performing a lot of classified testing which would be very unusual since they seem to reveal successes).
 
Last edited:
Lets not forget that both countries have very different defense needs. Both China and Russia have placed high priority on defeating the US BMD, while the US doesn't have a comprehensive BMD system to defeat. Also the US has an extensive offensive loadout of PGMs which neither Russia nor China can match at the moment. They are where they are right now because they had a big need for hypersonics and dumped money into them, while the US had a much lesser need and therefore didn't invest as much.
 
They just failed the last boost glide vehicle test. And the first BGV won't be fielded till 2023 and that too something like 3-4 missiles. China already fields these systems. So again, they're catching up. Catching up in terms of test successes, and catching up in terms of production base and operational fielding. Nothing else really matters. With air-breathing technologies we likely have a lead but then the services never wanted those until very recently. We should field the first scramjet weapon by 2026-2027. Russia will operationalize its (assuming Tsirkon is scramjet powered) next year or early 2023. Let's see when China operationalizes its system. No matter which way you cut it, they are trying to catch up. And not really investing at levels that will help overtake either Russia or China. So the best outcome based on current investment levels is to hope that we achieve parity by 2030 or so.

Did it fail because of the glider, or did it fail because of a faulty test booster (which we have plenty of leftover from the Cold War)?

Do you believe the performance fidelity and capability of what China is fielding right now is a major concern? Or is it just the fact that they have some boosters with a glide body attached to them that we are deep in the hole?

I wouldn't panic yet. Panic if our politicians continue to drag their feet on on-shoring critical supply chains and not committing to a dramatic increase in our national defense budget.
 
I'd like to see you qualify that claim with regards to hypersonics.

Technologically speaking, the US is fine. In terms of deployable locations where it matters? That's going to be a strategically sensitive subject for the smaller neighboring countries who do business with Russia & China.
The US is barely into testing with little in the way of industrial base and nothing in service. The same cannot be said of China, which has several systems actually in production and in service.
When DC falls I’m sure the Chinese will be impressed with what’s in our labs ;)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom