Current US hypersonic weapons projects. (General)

https://twitter.com/x/status/1981722348672676241
View: https://x.com/KratosDefense/status/1981722348672676241

Question: Using an Electron rocket could you launch a Dark Fury/Erinyes/C-HGB from Alaska on a 7,000km trajectory west across the Pacific and land the booster back where you started?

A Radian One spaceplane is also said to be able to deliver 2,270kg (5,000lb - could be 5 C-HGBs) anywhere on earth.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1981792235470700762
View: https://x.com/_DylanSmall_/status/1981792235470700762
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
Question: Using an Electron rocket could you launch a Dark Fury/Erinyes/C-HGB from Alaska on a 7,000km trajectory west across the Pacific and land the booster back where you started?
Click to expand...
My best estimate is that a 7,000 km ballistic trajectory requires a roughly 7 km/s burnout velocity, which is in the ballpark for the SS-20 and was also the separation velocity for the HTV-2's test flights. This paper shows a ~7,000 km HGV trajectory with a starting velocity of 6 km/s. The Electron booster itself has 7.2 km/s of delta-V, and adding a 500 kg payload drops that to 5.9 km/s. This doesn't include gravity losses, which will be more severe for a booster like Electron because of its low acceleration compared to a typical ballistic missile. The larger problem is that the boostback-capable first stages typically separate and begin boostback at around 2 km/s, so they have to cancel and reverse about 2 km/s (~1.5 km/s to cancel and ~0.5 km/s to reverse trajectory) of downrange velocity.

Working backwards from the end of the flight: Landing mass is 1,000 kg, assuming dry mass of 950 kg and residuals/equipment of 50 kg. A 250 m/s landing burn requires 100 kg of fuel, so post-boostback mass will be 1,100 kg if no other deceleration burns are required.

Downrange VelocityBoostback Burn Fuel MassBoostback Burn Start Mass (+1,100 kg)Main Burn Burnout Mass (+500 kg payload)Delta-V at Burnout Mass
2 km/s1,000 kg2,100 kg2,600 kg4.3 km/s
2.5 km/s1,400 kg2,500 kg3,000 kg3.9 km/s
3 km/s1,800 kg2,900 kg3,400 kg3.5 km/s
3.5 km/s2,400 kg3,500 kg4,000 kg3 km/s
4 km/s3,000 kg4,100 kg4,600 kg2.6 km/s

The table assumes that delta-V required for outbound and boostback burns are equal, but the stage will need significant velocity to return to its launch site.

With a hypothetical ~3 km/s flight:
1. Electron launches with a mass of 10,700 kg.
2. Electron shuts down at 3 km/s with a mass of 4,000 kg. The main burn expended 6,700 kg of fuel.
3. Electron deploys the 500 kg payload, decreasing mass to 3,500 kg.
4. Electron executes a 3.5 km/s boostback burn. It burns out with a mass of 1,100 kg, having expended 2,400 kg of fuel.
5. Electron executes a 250 m/s landing burn. It expends 100 kg of fuel and lands with a mass of 1,000 kg.

Given the modifications that might be necessary to weaponize an Electron booster and allow it to execute and survive a boostback, my estimate is that a 3 km/s payload release velocity is high and that 2.5 km/s is a more realistic velocity. This would give you a ballistic trajectory of around 2,000 km, and an HGV might be able to add 1,000 km to that for a total range of 3,000 km given no maneuvering and terminal approach at minimum energy.
 
Not James Stockdale said:
My best estimate is that a 7,000 km ballistic trajectory requires a roughly 7 km/s burnout velocity,
Click to expand...

BGRV (~1900lbs) flew 5,000 (8,000 km) miles after being boosted to Mach 15 (4.4 km/s) at 130,000 feet.

"In profile, the Atlas missile
would fly to an altitude of about 130,000 feet, turn to
horizontal flight to gain speed, and then would separate BGRV on a glide-path at over Mach 15 toward
110,000 foot altitude."

Maximum planned speed mentioned was Mach 18 though it was never stated if they ever got that high in tests. Even that is only 5.3 km/s.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2025-10-25 173704.png
    Screenshot 2025-10-25 173704.png
    453.2 KB · Views: 101
Not James Stockdale said:
My best estimate is that a 7,000 km ballistic trajectory requires a roughly 7 km/s burnout velocity, which is in the ballpark for the SS-20 and was also the separation velocity for the HTV-2's test flights. This paper shows a ~7,000 km HGV trajectory with a starting velocity of 6 km/s. The Electron booster itself has 7.2 km/s of delta-V, and adding a 500 kg payload drops that to 5.9 km/s. This doesn't include gravity losses, which will be more severe for a booster like Electron because of its low acceleration compared to a typical ballistic missile. The larger problem is that the boostback-capable first stages typically separate and begin boostback at around 2 km/s, so they have to cancel and reverse about 2 km/s (~1.5 km/s to cancel and ~0.5 km/s to reverse trajectory) of downrange velocity.

Working backwards from the end of the flight: Landing mass is 1,000 kg, assuming dry mass of 950 kg and residuals/equipment of 50 kg. A 250 m/s landing burn requires 100 kg of fuel, so post-boostback mass will be 1,100 kg if no other deceleration burns are required.

Downrange VelocityBoostback Burn Fuel MassBoostback Burn Start Mass (+1,100 kg)Main Burn Burnout Mass (+500 kg payload)Delta-V at Burnout Mass
2 km/s1,000 kg2,100 kg2,600 kg4.3 km/s
2.5 km/s1,400 kg2,500 kg3,000 kg3.9 km/s
3 km/s1,800 kg2,900 kg3,400 kg3.5 km/s
3.5 km/s2,400 kg3,500 kg4,000 kg3 km/s
4 km/s3,000 kg4,100 kg4,600 kg2.6 km/s

The table assumes that delta-V required for outbound and boostback burns are equal, but the stage will need significant velocity to return to its launch site.

With a hypothetical ~3 km/s flight:
1. Electron launches with a mass of 10,700 kg.
2. Electron shuts down at 3 km/s with a mass of 4,000 kg. The main burn expended 6,700 kg of fuel.
3. Electron deploys the 500 kg payload, decreasing mass to 3,500 kg.
4. Electron executes a 3.5 km/s boostback burn. It burns out with a mass of 1,100 kg, having expended 2,400 kg of fuel.
5. Electron executes a 250 m/s landing burn. It expends 100 kg of fuel and lands with a mass of 1,000 kg.

Given the modifications that might be necessary to weaponize an Electron booster and allow it to execute and survive a boostback, my estimate is that a 3 km/s payload release velocity is high and that 2.5 km/s is a more realistic velocity. This would give you a ballistic trajectory of around 2,000 km, and an HGV might be able to add 1,000 km to that for a total range of 3,000 km given no maneuvering and terminal approach at minimum energy.
Click to expand...
Surely Electron is rated to put 320kg in LEO (7.8km/s), so getting 450kg up to 6km/s (the speed of most SLBMs) should be possible, I think recovery is by parachute though. Don't forget to factor in the glide range of C-HGB also. I guess a lighter option is the ARRW warhead.
en.wikipedia.org

Rocket Lab Electron - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
Not James Stockdale said:
Given the modifications that might be necessary to weaponize an Electron booster
Click to expand...
It uses LOX and is stored inside until prepped for launch; it really can't be weaponized.
And why would reuse as a weapon be even considered or required? It not as though it is going to be used that much
 
Byeman said:
It uses LOX and is stored inside until prepped for launch; it really can't be weaponized.
And why would reuse as a weapon be even considered or required? It not as though it is going to be used that much
Click to expand...
I was imagining an RTLS capability for launching MARV'd warheads (possibly anti-ship) on repeat over long range from CONUS towards the Pacific theatre without expending an entire missile.
 
Forest Green said:
I was imagining an RTLS capability for launching MARV'd warheads (possibly anti-ship) on repeat over long range from CONUS towards the Pacific theatre without expending an entire missile.
Click to expand...
Falcon 9 would be a better choice. Even then, they aren't responsive. If they get Starship flying daily, or more. . .
 
Last edited:
A better option would probably be some kind of long term payload in space in polar orbits. If something starship sized was modified for long term orbital operations, a platform of that size could potentially rain down dozens of RVs.
 
Josh_TN said:
A better option would probably be some kind of long term payload in space in polar orbits. If something starship sized was modified for long term orbital operations, a platform of that size could potentially rain down dozens of RVs.
Click to expand...
That isn't responsive, unless there are multiple platforms on orbit. Only two passes per day per a single platform.
 
Forest Green said:
I was imagining an RTLS capability for launching MARV'd warheads (possibly anti-ship) on repeat over long range from CONUS towards the Pacific theatre without expending an entire missile.
Click to expand...
Reusability doesn't mean it is available for reuse upon recovery. Just buy more launchers
Or use Minuteman stages, they have more capability.
 
Byeman said:
Reusability doesn't mean it is available for reuse upon recovery. Just buy more launchers
Or use Minuteman stages, they have more capability.
Click to expand...
What if you had it set up so that the refuelling took place at the landing dock?
 
Forest Green said:
What if you had it set up so that the refuelling took place at the landing dock?
Click to expand...
The stages have to go through some refurb and the landing legs retracted and then placed on the pad.
Launch vehicles are still not to level of reuse like aircraft. Less robust than the SR-71, which also didn't gas and go.
 
I agree with @Forest Green , mil operations are not restricted to a single point for launch and recovery like civilian ones. The flexibility and agility provided by back and forth launches across multiple points earth wide would be a bonus for the military that are not restricted as civilians with land ownership and staff deployment.

It is also doubtful that, even if the calculation could be refined, that 30% of the launch mass have to be devoided singly to recovery when payload fraction is what often dictates military access to space.

Imagine launching on alert from California and recovering in Germany where the system is then forward deployed for deeper strike.
Then the booster land in ME for a mission in Asia. So on and so on, depending on booster reliability.
 

U.S. Navy Air-Launched Version Of ‘Cheap’ Blackbeard Hypersonic Missile Hinted At​

www.twz.com

U.S. Navy Air-Launched Version Of ‘Cheap’ Blackbeard Hypersonic Missile Hinted At

Defense startup Castelion is now under contract to integrate its Blackbeard missile onto "operational" Navy and Army platforms.
www.twz.com www.twz.com

At the same time, there are indications that the Navy is pursuing Blackbeard, at least in part, as an air-launched weapon. In February 2024, Castelion received a contract from the Office of Naval Research (ONR), valued at just under $3 million, to “perform an initial trade study to identify cost, schedule, and performance estimates of producing an air-launched anti-surface weapon and shipping system not to exceed 212″ in length with an on-aircraft weight limit of 2,750 lbs. and an air-to-air weapon with not-to-exceed dimensions of 7″ diameter x 144″ long with production quantity of >200 no later than 2027 for both weapons.”
Click to expand...

Forest Green said:
The Sun but at:
1:15 it states "hundreds of thousands" (of dollars, not millions).
2:15 it states 650+ miles. Don't know whether he's referring to the HX3 version or not though. lso references 3x HIMARS range, so possibly ~3x ATACMS.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvEVgLRbyFc


View attachment 789600
View attachment 789599
View attachment 789598
Click to expand...
 
Byeman said:
The stages have to go through some refurb and the landing legs retracted and then placed on the pad.
Launch vehicles are still not to level of reuse like aircraft. Less robust than the SR-71, which also didn't gas and go.
Click to expand...
The *plan* for Starship is to get down to same-day reuse. Even multiple times per day. (But then they're also having separate launch and catch towers now, with no mention of how they're going to move from one to the other, so. . . I guess we'll see.)
 
Sferrin said:
The *plan* for Starship is to get down to same-day reuse. Even multiple times per day. (But then they're also having separate launch and catch towers now, with no mention of how they're going to move from one to the other, so. . . I guess we'll see.)
Click to expand...
That is Starship and still a few years away.
They will use the same transporters that moves the vehicles from the assembly building
 
Forest Green said:
If it's cheap, manoeuvrable, can hit targets 650 miles away and travels at Mach 5, does the complexity of the propulsion system matter?
Click to expand...
Obviously not. Just as obviously, they're trying to get clicks by throwing "hypersonic" in the headline. This one takes it to the next level though as they're talking about a test article that doesn't amount to much more than a sounding rocket from the 50s.
 
Sferrin said:
Am I the only one who is tired of clownish publications hyperventilating about "hypersonic" weapons that turn out to be nothing but rockets?
Click to expand...

This is a steppingstone to multiple things they are trying to do here. The initial stab at it is basically an air launched GMLRS ER equivalent. Bigger systems are planned as long as the company is successful in its initial products.
 
the secret sauce, if there actually is anything to Castillions product line, would be low production costs. So far I’ve not heard any hard numbers for that or any description of why their solid fuel rockets are any different from everyone else’s solid fuel rockets, but presumably there’s something behind the obnoxious hype, given the contracts they have.
 
Sferrin said:
Obviously not. Just as obviously, they're trying to get clicks by throwing "hypersonic" in the headline.
Click to expand...
A lot of these also lack qualification of whether it hits hypersonic speed, which is fairly trivial, or sustains and maneuvers at hypersonic speed (which is usually not the case as this is untrivial).
 
Sferrin said:
Just as obviously, they're trying to get clicks by throwing "hypersonic" in the headline.
Click to expand...
Not clicks but dollars though the SM buzz probably helps there.

Josh_TN said:
the secret sauce, if there actually is anything to Castillions product line, would be low production costs. So far I’ve not heard any hard numbers for that or any description of why their solid fuel rockets are any different from everyone else’s solid fuel rockets, but presumably there’s something behind the obnoxious hype, given the contracts they have.
Click to expand...

They are approaching this from a couple of directions. One is vertical integration - They are going to use an in-house SRM, seeker, and other sub-systems. They are working on an AESA based seeker system for moving maritime targets. Second, they are focusing on lower performance systems. No air breathing, scramjet or highly maneuverable boost glide like systems. It remains to be seen whether the service customers accept that but there generally seems to be an appreciation that non exquisite, high-volume systems need to co-exist in very large quantities alongside smaller number of more exquisite systems.
 
Bring_it_on where do you see the realistic sweet spot in terms of volume x $/AUR points in this lower capability tier that make either service commit to any such non traditional missile vendor? Obviously would love to hear any one else’s thoughts as well who’s spent time on an industry convention floor chatting to folks. Just thinking more about the business model for a vertically integrated model vs a purposefully distributed and swappable approach that leans heavily on partners for key subsystems like the seeker/fuze, warhead, comms, SRM etc…
 
Josh_TN said:
the secret sauce, if there actually is anything to Castillions product line, would be low production costs. So far I’ve not heard any hard numbers for that or any description of why their solid fuel rockets are any different from everyone else’s solid fuel rockets, but presumably there’s something behind the obnoxious hype, given the contracts they have.
Click to expand...
Cost was stated to be in the hundreds of thousands (as opposed to millions) in the video for the 650 mile range missile. From some images there seems to be a two stage missile, maybe also multi-pulse, my guess is that they're printed to attain the low cost.
 
Training_Dummy said:
Bring_it_on where do you see the realistic sweet spot in terms of volume x $/AUR points in this lower capability tier that make either service commit to any such non traditional missile vendor?
Click to expand...
This is a really hard problem because force mix, and other things are just as important than AUR performance and costs. TTotal Cost per effect instead of cost per AUR is really the metric to look at. Launchers, whether aircraft, or ground based systems are not cheap so the idea of more numerous cheaper weapons have to factor that in. Similarly, if you are relying on a greater number of effectors to kill a target then there's cost and time associated with that for an expeditionary force that has to now support the capability to deploy a larger force structure to deliver those increased number of effectors on target at any given time. I am not sure what either the Navy and the Army are trying to accomplish with their respective programs to make sense of this contract around Blackbeard.
 
bring_it_on said:
This is a steppingstone to multiple things they are trying to do here. The initial stab at it is basically an air launched GMLRS ER equivalent. Bigger systems are planned as long as the company is successful in its initial products.
Click to expand...
Sketched this up several years ago. (Though it might be a tad long for the B-1Bs bays.)
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot 2025-10-28 144205.png
    Screenshot 2025-10-28 144205.png
    903.6 KB · Views: 103
Josh_TN said:
the secret sauce, if there actually is anything to Castillions product line, would be low production costs. So far I’ve not heard any hard numbers for that or any description of why their solid fuel rockets are any different from everyone else’s solid fuel rockets, but presumably there’s something behind the obnoxious hype, given the contracts they have.
Click to expand...
Castellion is claiming they can build them for ridiculously low prices. Castellion is also licensing a bunch of DoD owned tech and selling it back to DoD at a reasonable price.

But all the contracts they've got are aligned towards demonstration flights - which are relatively easy. The work and money is in weapons system integration - which is where things get expensive, as it is very hard to get good people to do that work efficiently and cheaply.

This where Anduril is struggling mightily at the moment - so my question with Castellion is: can they move beyond tech demos - and can they integrate it with a 25 year old destroyer? They've raised enough money to say that they can do it - but time will tell.
 
A company to watch in the hypersonic space: BNNT LLC

www.bnnt.com

FAMU-FSU Researchers Find Thermal Limits of Advanced Nanomaterials

Tallahassee, Fla. — A team of FAMU-FSU College of Engineering researchers at the High-Performance Materials Institute has completed the first-ever study on how purified boron nitride nanotubes...
www.bnnt.com www.bnnt.com

BNNT also stands for Boron Nitride Nanotubes. BNNT LLC is working on a BNNT-reinforced ceramic matrix composite to serve as an RF-transparent heat-resistant radome for hypersonic air vehicles.

Award | SBIR

www.sbir.gov www.sbir.gov
BNNT-reinforced ceramic matrix composites are the solution to otherwise intractable challenges to the DOD priority of supersonic and hypersonic flight. Hypersonic flight requires significant innovation to radar domes (radomes) and other windows/apertures to maintain essential radio-frequency (RF) communications and sensing amid the compressed engagement timelines, severe aerodynamic heating, and thermal shocks that such speed brings. Known ceramics and fiber reinforcement techniques do not allow the required combination of RF transparency, strength, or high-temperature endurance, nor allow tailoring compatible layers. The boron nitride in these nanotubes is a known high-temperature dielectric, but not previously in a structurally strong form as now brought by these boron nitride nanotubes (BNNTs). Conversely, previously known reinforcements do not meet the combined requirements of high-temperature strength, controllable thermal conductivity, and dielectric RF transparency. BNNT can improve both thermo-structural capability and electrical performance. BNNTs will reinforce composites by displacing the matrix to lower a composite's overall relative permittivity, countering effects of higher porosity, and decreasing matrix shrinkage during heating stages of fabrication, further enabling hybrids of dual matrices by bridging dispersoids via the super strong covalent bonds of the nanotubes. These ceramic matrix composites (CMCs) will be used to develop coupons to test architecture concepts, then prototypes, for new radome architectures to enable multiple future air platforms to fly longer and faster (supersonic and hypersonic) through all weather. Optimization of ceramics explored is expected to improve strength above 1500C, and potentially to 2100C for newer matrix systems.
Click to expand...
 
CeraNova also continues to refine their particular ceramic radome for hypersonic use

ceranova.com

CeraLumina™ Nosecones and Domes

As surveillance and tactical missions become more vital and missile speeds increase, there is a need to improve the performance of mid-wave infrared (MWIR) systems to provide higher quality images. Increasing missile velocities coupled with higher sensor performance requires commensurate...
ceranova.com ceranova.com
 

Liquid propulsion for hypersonics provides flight capabilities not seen before​

breakingdefense.com

Liquid propulsion for hypersonics provides flight capabilities not seen before - Breaking Defense

Ursa Major's American-made storable liquid rocket engine technology offers advantages over traditional liquid and solid rocket propulsion.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Ursa Major’s American-made storable liquid rocket engine technology offers advantages over traditional liquid and solid rocket propulsion, including: ability to start, stop, and throttle the engine for improved maneuverability and survivability; liquid propellants that can be handled more easily than cryogenic or toxic fuels and stored for years; the ability to operate endo- and exo-atmospherically; and a modular and affordable design using advanced 3D printing techniques.
Click to expand...
 
That would be correct:

Previously, the startup gave the Pentagon the Hadley engine for hypersonic launches. The developments from this project were used to create the Draper propulsion system. The engine uses hydrogen peroxide and paraffin as fuel.

The Draper has a thrust of 1.8 tonnes at sea level. The propulsion system is expected to be used not only in spacecraft but also in anti-satellite systems.
Click to expand...

gagadget.com

Ursa Major has successfully tested the Draper hypersonic rocket engine fuelled by hydrogen peroxide and paraffin

Last May, US startup Ursa Major signed a contract with The U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory to develop and produce a propulsion system for hypersonic testing. A year later, the company tested the Draper engine.
gagadget.com gagadget.com
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom