DARPA/USAF Force Application and Launch from CONUS (FALCON) program

sublight said:
They totally ranted against conventionally armed ICBM's and Tridents, so you would think they would be a little more optimistic about the success of this program....
Click to expand...

I'm guessing this is sarcasm?

There are some good arguments against global strike, including the cost, the limited utility, and the escalation problem (i.e. the missile might have to fly over Russia on its way to a target).
 
From the Lexington Institute:

Non-Nuclear Global Strike Mission Requires New Missile
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Global Strike

The most important security initiative the Obama Administration can take in the remainder of its term is the development of a credible prompt conventional global strike capability. The 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review made a point of the growing anti-access threat and the need for improved U.S. standoff strike capabilities (as well as penetrating ISR and air-breathing weapons delivery). In addition, the Obama Administration is determined to reduce the relevance of nuclear weapons in this country’s defense strategy. But in order to achieve this goal, as acknowledged in the new Nuclear Posture Review, the military will need a host of new capabilities, most significantly, non-nuclear prompt global strike for use against time-urgent regional threats. Whether it is to reassure allies, counter the growing challenge posed by anti-access/area denial threats or reduce reliance on nuclear weapons, the ability to attack a wide range of targets at intercontinental range promptly and without resort to nuclear weapons, is of central importance to U.S. national security.

Prompt global strike is not a new concept. The Bush Administration proposed it as part of the last Nuclear Posture Review. Then the idea was to convert some number of ICBMs or SLBMs into conventional weapons delivery systems. The idea was to be able to use such a system to attack a fleeting target of opportunity such as a terrorist in control of a weapon of mass destruction or a rogue nuclear state with a small number of long-range ballistic missiles such as North Korea and, potentially, Iran.

The Bush proposal fell afoul of arms control zealots who were concerned that the conversion of ICBMs and SLBMs to other uses was a way of prolonging the existing of strategic nuclear forces. Some observers raised the additional concern regarding how nations such as Russia or China might perceive and respond to the launch of a U.S. ballistic missile in their general direction. Neither country would be able to know for certain that the U.S. missile was not being launched against them or that it was not carrying a nuclear warhead. This argument ignored the ability of both Moscow and Beijing to understand the security context which would lead to such a launch or the certainty that the U.S. would inform both parties if it undertook such an action. But these objections were enough to scuttle the idea.

Now the idea has been resurrected. But the same concerns apply. Therefore, it might make sense for the United States to invest in a new long-range missile as the delivery system for a prompt conventional warhead. Foreign observers could be reassured about the purpose of this new system by being allowed to observe its test flight program. Also, the new missile should not be based in existing ICBM silos. These two steps, coupled with some form of onsite inspection would provide high confidence assurance to other countries that the launch of such a weapon did not signal the beginning of a U.S. nuclear strike on anyone.

The other advantage of developing a new launcher is that this would help support the U.S. solid rocket motor industrial base. This is a critical sector of the defense industrial base. In the aftermath of the administration’s decisions to retire the Space Shuttle and cancel its replacement, the Constellation, this vital sector is at risk. The administration has committed billions of dollars to preserve and modernize the scientific and industrial bases that support nuclear weapons. It should take sensible steps to also protect the solid rocket motor industry. A program to develop a prompt global strike ballistic missile would be one such step.

Daniel Goure, Ph.D.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't find my exact post but I have been advocating a new missile for Prompt Global Strike to improve verification and support the industrial base for many months now. Specifically a heavy lift missile that could carry many HTV-2 sized RVs and be so different from a MMIII flight profile as to be easily distinguishable to the Russians.
 
mmm, changing the flight profile can be done changing the staging time sequence, for example having a very-speedy burning first stage, or working with only two stages, etc. But if one wants not to be convinced, nothing will suffice. Someone could say: ok, they are developing a new heavy booster for conventional warheads and then converting them to nuclear. Homing MaRV are dual use technology, as I already said. All-in-all, the Navy approach is the best: SLIRBM can be fired on trajectories that don't overfly the Russian territory to strike targets in typical areas of trouble. Besides, a SLIRBM would be really "prompt": it is true that communicating with a submerged submarine is more difficult, but I assume that the targets are in already known general areas, so you can put a submarine at periscope depth cruising (or with trailing surface antenna), give the order and coordinates, launch and strike all in 10 minutes, better than the 40 minutes required by CONUS basing. Besides, if target are non-state enemies on contested territory, having a long endurance UCAV orbiting at 100.000 feet armed with PGS could be an even better proposition.
FALCON is a useful technology, however, indipendently from the booster used. My opinion, at least.
 
Skybolt - I agree with everything you say as IMHO there are many technological solutions the US can use to develop this unique capability. Also, you are absolutely correct the a SLIRBM would be "more" prompt stationed in the Indian Ocean rather than Vandenberg. And of course opponents of this or a land based system can continue to make what they believe are legitimate arguments about verification, mis-identified launches, etc.
 
bobbymike said:
Skybolt - I agree with everything you say as IMHO there are many technological solutions the US can use to develop this unique capability. Also, you are absolutely correct the a SLIRBM would be "more" prompt stationed in the Indian Ocean rather than Vandenberg. And of course opponents of this or a land based system can continue to make what they believe are legitimate arguments about verification, mis-identified launches, etc.
Click to expand...

Thing is, both China and Russia already have convetional ballistic missiles so they really have no cause to complain. Does it matter to Europe that Iskander isn't an ICBM? Carries a nuke just as well as an ICBM (though not as fast obviously). Russia will complain (and does) over anything and everything. (Complaining over the possiblity of PAC-2 in Poland now.) Bottom line, if we need it we should develop it. If others want to complain let them.
 
I also like the technology because it will potentially a "safe" way to advance systems will possible nuclear duel use like RV's, solid rockets and guidance systems. In today's world if you had a budget line item saying "Nuclear Re-entry Vehicle R&D" you will have a much more difficult time, politically, than if you had "Conventional Re-entry Vehicle R&D."

Plus if you announce tens of meter CEP for a conventional MaRV you have also created a very accurate nuclear RV without "actually" having done it. Yes my argument is completely semantical but when most politicians and the general public cringe at anything "nuclear" maybe this is a good way forward to avoid these political fights.
 
bobbymike said:
I also like the technology because it will potentially a "safe" way to advance systems will possible nuclear duel use like RV's, solid rockets and guidance systems. In today's world if you had a budget line item saying "Nuclear Re-entry Vehicle R&D" you will have a much more difficult time, politically, than if you had "Conventional Re-entry Vehicle R&D."

Plus if you announce tens of meter CEP for a conventional MaRV you have also created a very accurate nuclear RV without "actually" having done it. Yes my argument is completely semantical but when most politicians and the general public cringe at anything "nuclear" maybe this is a good way forward to avoid these political fights.
Click to expand...

That's why the Super Hornet is the F/A-18E and not the F-24. ;)
 
And, Sferrin, not overflying a nation capable of tracking an incoming conventional ICBM makes more, er, improbable that that nation could, er, advise the targets to RUN LIKE MAD AWAY FROM THEREDOWN ! ;D
 
bobbymike said:
I also like the technology because it will potentially a "safe" way to advance systems will possible nuclear duel use like RV's, solid rockets and guidance systems. In today's world if you had a budget line item saying "Nuclear Re-entry Vehicle R&D" you will have a much more difficult time, politically, than if you had "Conventional Re-entry Vehicle R&D."

Plus if you announce tens of meter CEP for a conventional MaRV you have also created a very accurate nuclear RV without "actually" having done it. Yes my argument is completely semantical but when most politicians and the general public cringe at anything "nuclear" maybe this is a good way forward to avoid these political fights.
Click to expand...

Actually, the opposite seems to be true. EE/LETB has flown as a demonstration of a very accurate (very!) nuclear armed RV. Of course, in doing so it demonstrated the conventional capability, though not the CAV mission.
So we have a precision nuclear RV small steps away from production and deployment. It could be armed conventionally with only 1 or 2 more demonstration flight to validate whatever the new kill mechanism is (a kinetic kill with an inert RV has basically been tested already)
 
quellish - your post is 100% accurate and why I said in my post that it is just a matter of semantics. Do the same thing as the HTV-2 test and see what happens if the New York Times headline reads "US Tests Very Accurate NUCLEAR Re-entry Vehicle" or "US Tests Hypersonic Conventional Re-entry Vehicle". :D

Basically IMHO, under the rubric of the prompt global strike program the US should develop new technology or modernize existing technology to help the nuclear infrastructure industrial base.
 
I love those inlets!

Falcon reminds me of the 1960 Republic M25 concept (AW&ST; August 15, 1960; pg 64).

[/quote]

You can search for on-line the LockMart patent on the design process.
 
By the way, how could a re-entry vehicle be SUBSONIC is beyond my appreciation.... ;)
 
http://www.tecnocino.it/articolo/air-force-falcon-sparisce-l-aereo-ipersonico/19657/

http://gizmodo.com/5526308/air-forces-falcon-hypersonic-glider-disappears-mysteriously
 
A fail, yes, but not 'epic'.
The first full-up test of a new weapons system,
incorporating a lot of new, experimental technology,
and remember, contact was not lost until nine minutes
into the glide phase.

LOL at the comments in the site written in English.
Click to expand...

video game addicts and computer geeks the lot of 'em...


cheers,
Robin.
 
robunos said:
A fail, yes, but not 'epic'.
The first full-up test of a new weapons system,
incorporating a lot of new, experimental technology,
and remember, contact was not lost until nine minutes
into the glide phase.
Click to expand...

I believe one needs to be careful on parsing the reported info. My understanding is that telemetry was lost at nine minutes after launch, briefly following separation of the HTV-2 from the Minotaur IV lite and establishment of stable flight.
 
I've checked, and stand corrected, nine minutes after launch is correct... :-[


cheers,
Robin.
 
Obviously, a Chinese attempt to reconstruct HTV-2 shape from this paper
I bet that every available Western source were used ;)
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1766749&show=html
 

Attachments

  • 1270810101037.png
    1270810101037.png
    151.6 KB · Views: 266
DARPA Says HTV-2 Exceeded Control Limits

Posted by Graham Warwick at 11/16/2010 3:39 PM CST

DARPA says its Lockheed Martin-built HTV-2 hypersonic test vehicle was lost soon after launch on April 22 because higher-than-predicted yaw, which coupled into roll, exceeded the capability of the glide vehicle's body-flap control surfaces.

The HTV-2 had been launched from Vandenberg on a planned 3,000nm hypersonic flight toward Kwajalein in the Pacific to demonstrate aerodynamic and structural technology for prompt global strike. Contact was lost 9min after launch, and after the dart-like glider had separated from its Minotaur IV Lite booster.

The HTV-2 was programmed to reenter the atmosphere and then pull up to begin its hypersonic glide to a splashdown off Kwajalein. At the time, DARPA said telemetry indicated the vehicle had achieved controlled flight at over Mach 20 before contract as lost.

Now the agency says a six-month investigation has concluded the "most probable cause of the HTV-2 flight anomaly was higher-than-predicted yaw, which coupled into roll thus exceeding the available control capability" at the angle of attack the vehicle was programmed to fly for the speed and altitude at that point in the flight. The vehicle began a slow roll divergence that continued until it triggered the autonomous flight termination system.

The analysis concluded "knowledge of several key aerodynamic paramaters in this flight regime was limited", DARPA says, and the review broad has concluded "no major changes to the vehicle or software are required...Engineers will adjust the vehicle's center of gravity, decrease the angle of attack flown and use the onboard reaction controol system to augment the vehicle flaps" before the second HTV-2 flies in late 2011.
Click to expand...
 
2006 Walker's presentation - wasn't here before
www.sae.org/events/ain/presentations/2006walker.pdf
 
thanks to CodeOne staff as usual
 

Attachments

  • 04_SWUnmanned_V26N2_2011_1267828237_4845.jpg
    04_SWUnmanned_V26N2_2011_1267828237_4845.jpg
    123.9 KB · Views: 247
http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/77436




DARPA set to blast Falcon Mach 20 test flight
Second and final test of its hypersonic Falcon aircraft to test critical flight systems
By Layer 8 on Tue, 08/09/11 - 12:06pm.


The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is taking to the sky again, this time to run what it say will be the second and final test of its hypersonic Falcon aircraft which is capable if hitting speeds up to Mach 20 or about 13,000MPH.


The Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 is scheduled to launch Wednesday between 7:00am - 1:00 pm PDT from Vandenberg AFB, Calif., aboard an Air Force Minotaur IV rocket which delivers the Falcon to a starting point high in the atmosphere where its engine ignites and if all goes well it will blast through the air for about a half hour, DARPA says.
 
A little more from Ares

The U.S. Air Force confirms it will attempt the second flight of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 (HTV-2) from Space Launch Complex 8 at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., on Aug. 10 at 7 a.m.
The Lockheed Martin-built hypersonic glider will be boosted by a Minotaur IV with the aim of flying 4,100 nm across the Pacific in 30 min., to splash down off Kwajalein Atoll. The HTV-2 is designed to demonstrate the high lift-to-drag aerodynamics and high-temperature materials needed for sustained hypersonic flight, with the goal of validating technology for a vehicle able to reach anywhere in the world in 60 min.
The second HTV-2 incorporates a more robust flight control system to counter the issues which led to the loss of the first vehicle, nine min. into the flight on April 22, 2010. The revised control system incorporates changes to the center of gravity to reduce the lateral/directional coupling which occurred on the first flight, as well as adaptations to allow the vehicle’s nitrogen-gas reaction control system to be used for yaw control in the atmosphere – as well as in space. (AW&ST, Aug. 1, 2011. p14)
The Air Force says the launch will be the fourth of the Orbital Sciences Corporation’s Minotaur IV rocket which uses decommissioned Peacekeeper intercontinental ballistic missile motors. It will also be the ninth launch for the Minotaur program from Vandenberg AFB.
The HTV-2 is the final surviving element of Darpa’s Falcon program to demonstrate technology for a prompt global strike system. The program will terminate with the second launch.
 
Orionblamblam said:
bobbymike said:
The program will terminate with the second launch.
Click to expand...

Why bother with the launch, then?
Click to expand...

I was wondering the same thing. That seems to be business as usual anymore. It's no wonder that Lockheed Martin is having to reach all the way back to ASALM to find an engine that works for their high speed LRASM-B. Everybody gives up as soon as they fail once or twice, and sometimes even if they succeed.
 
Orionblamblam said:
bobbymike said:
The program will terminate with the second launch.
Click to expand...

Why bother with the launch, then?
Click to expand...

Yes, the HTV-2 program is only planning two flights. However the USAF is looking ahead to the weaponized program. An RFI for that was issued earlier this summer:

https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=08c8546be235c501bf82939e87c6fac0&tab=core&_cview=0

Today needs to be good to help keep the momentum going!
 
Try this link and be sure to click on the embedded animation links:

http://www.darpa.mil/Flight%20Overview%20slide--UPDATED%20as%20of%2029%20Jul%2011.html

Let's hope the flight matches the STK animations.
 
Will Lockheed or the respective governmental agencies hold the knowledge accquired through this program to be applied in other future programs? Let's say the next program is to weaponize a system that would do good to utilize the knowledge accquired here, but the program goes to Boeing. Will Boeing be able to gain access to the knowledge and experience gained in FALCON?
 
donnage99 said:
Will Lockheed or the respective governmental agencies hold the knowledge accquired through this program to be applied in other future programs? Let's say the next program is to weaponize a system that would do good to utilize the knowledge accquired here, but the program goes to Boeing. Will Boeing be able to gain access to the knowledge and experience gained in FALCON?
Click to expand...

FALCON HTV-2 is transitioning into the CSM program:
http://www.csm-ea.com/
 
Hypersonics is in trouble. The powers that be don't want to fund it. Even if this test is successful, don't expect that it will go any further.
 
Vandenberg HTV2 launch scrubbed, pushed to Thursday


Published on August 10, 2011 8:45 am PT
- By Jim Duran - Writer
- Article Editor and Approved - Warren Miller


(TheWeatherSpace.com) -- Vandenberg Air Force Base is launching a Minotaur launch vehicle on Thursday August 11th after weather downrange scrubbed today's attempt.


The rocket will launch from Space Launch Complex-8 and will carry the HTV-2 or Hypersonic Test Vehicle, under development for reusable purposes.


Southern California Weather Authority Meteorologist Kevin Martin says the weather will be typical for the base with fog and tops of the marine layer to just over 1,100 feet and light wind conditions.


"What we will see at the base on Thursday will be pea soup fog in the morning due to the calmer wind conditions and saturated humidity," said Martin. "During the later part of the launch window we should see visibility increasing but clouds sticking around the base, much like today's weather there. The winds will increase somewhat but will remain below launch violation limits."


The launch weather surrounding the base will also be a tough battle, according to Martin.


"Viewers that wish to view this launch during the morning should not be at the base because you likely will not see much," said Martin. "Viewers across Southern California may actually have the marine layer all the way from the coast to valley zones in the morning backing off slightly over the last part of the launch window (noon) however remain Cloudy along the San Diego Coast. The best spot is going to be Bakersfield or anywhere above 2,000 feet near the base."


The launch window opens at 7 a.m. and closes at 1 p.m. Pacific Time.


http://www.theweatherspace.com/news/TWS-08_10_2011_htv2.html
 
blackstar said:
Hypersonics is in trouble. The powers that be don't want to fund it. Even if this test is successful, don't expect that it will go any further.
Click to expand...

Which powers that be? Congress? President? Military? All of the above? Give us names. ;)
 
In flight now! Looks like it has already flown much farther than last time...
 
Range assets lost telemetry feed (35 mins ago), 25 minutes after entering glide phase.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom