General Dynamics Convair Division Boost-Glide Vehicle (BGV)

RAP

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
29 January 2008
Messages
872
Reaction score
1,593

Attachments

  • Desk model1.jpg
    Desk model1.jpg
    50.2 KB · Views: 295
  • F111.jpg
    F111.jpg
    163 KB · Views: 156
  • Desk models.jpg
    Desk models.jpg
    173.1 KB · Views: 276
  • Desk model 2.jpg
    Desk model 2.jpg
    28 KB · Views: 269
  • Desk model.jpg
    Desk model.jpg
    49.4 KB · Views: 267
  • Desk model4.jpg
    Desk model4.jpg
    50 KB · Views: 286
...
 

Attachments

  • HGV.jpg
    HGV.jpg
    100.1 KB · Views: 170
Pew! Pew!
 

Attachments

  • haveyspacey.jpg
    haveyspacey.jpg
    500.7 KB · Views: 165
RAP said:
Interesting model. Also has pics of other models that look will be up for auction soon.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/RESIN-BOOST-GLYDE-VEHICLE-and-metal-MINUTEMAN-3-BOOSTERS-/201483158527?hash=item2ee95503ff:g:nikAAOSwnH1Wauuj

Related:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/RESIN-BOOST-GLiDE-VEHICLE-Desk-or-Shelf-Model/201488689278?_trksid=p2047675.c100011.m1850&_trkparms=aid%3D222007%26algo%3DSIC.MBE%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20140602152332%26meid%3D6ba044b79d104f5f9f74dc45333fb33c%26pid%3D100011%26rk%3D2%26rkt%3D2%26sd%3D201483158527
 

Attachments

  • Boost Glide Model.jpg
    Boost Glide Model.jpg
    17.8 KB · Views: 139
8126202201_16f744f539_o.jpg


General Dynamics ASM

 
I *knew* I had something on that. I have some fragmentary records of the General Dynamics BGV with that and other booster arrangements. The burnout was at 160,000 feet and 16,391 fps. For a different (shorter) booster arrangement, the B-1 could carry eight of 'em. As shown here, the glide range *seems* to have been 2,000 to 2,400 nm, but given the fragmentary nature of what I have, that's uncertain.

gd_hgv0021.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I *knew* I had something on that. I have some fragmentary records of the General Dynamics BGV with that and other booster arrangements. The burnout was at 160,000 feet and 16,391 fps. For a different (shorter) booster arrangement, the B-1 could carry eight of 'em. As shown here, the glide range *seems* to have been 2,000 to 2,400 nm, but given the fragmentary nature of what I have, that's uncertain.
Late 70s or mid-80s?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I *knew* I had something on that. I have some fragmentary records of the General Dynamics BGV with that and other booster arrangements. The burnout was at 160,000 feet and 16,391 fps. For a different (shorter) booster arrangement, the B-1 could carry eight of 'em. As shown here, the glide range *seems* to have been 2,000 to 2,400 nm, but given the fragmentary nature of what I have, that's uncertain.

View attachment 615704

Either long or short carried externally I presume? (On the same hard-points AGM-129s were later carried on?)

615736
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HGV

615745


American spaceplane. Study 1992. The Hypersonic Glide Vehicle was a USAF project discussed openly in 1987 to 1988, which may have flown as a black project in 1992-1993.
AKA: Hypersonic Glide Vehicle;Strategic Boost Glide Vehicle. Status: Study 1992. Gross mass: 2,000 kg (4,400 lb).

A model of the General Dynamics concept for the vehicle was shown at the Air Force Association show in 1987. Martin Marietta was an associated or competing contractor. The HGV resurrected the Dynasoar boost-glide bomber concept of the 1950's. A booster would accelerate the HGV to Mach 18 and an altitude of 80 km. It would then enter a long glide, coming over its selected target at Mach 5 at 30 km altitude. An HGV launched by a Minuteman would have a range of 15,000 km; air-launched from a B-1 or B-52, a 7,400 km range.

Advanced materials and lightweight avionics were expected to make it possible for the ca. 2 metric ton HGV to have a useful payload. These might include an interceptor using Raytheon's LORAINE (Long-Range Interceptor Experiment) phased-array radar; or a surface attack missile using Loral air-to-surface guidance concepts developed for the USAF Maneuvering Re-entry Vehicle (MaRV) program. In 1987 the USAF was considering a five-year, $400 million program ending in four Minuteman-boosted HGV flights from Vandenberg AFB. Reports as late as 1992 indicated the tests may have occurred under the Have Space project, with the air-launched version referred to as the HGV and the ground-launched version as the Strategic Boost Glide Vehicle.

The NASA Hyper-X air-launched scramjet experiment may owe some of its launch vehicle underpinnings to HGV.
 

The image is not of an HGV model, but of Isinglass. Isinglass was not a GD project.

In the late 70s and early 80s DARPA pursued a program to demonstrate an air launched ballistic missile with hypersonic glider for air-to-air. This was the Ballistic Intercept Missile. The reentry vehicle was to be SWERVE. LORAINE was the guidance and seeker package. The thinking was that this missile could be used to shoot down bombers threatening the US or carrier groups.
At the same time USAF was pursuing their boost glide vehicle for hitting ground targets, and the navy had their own program. In 1987 congress ordered that the DARPA, USAF. and Navy programs be consolidated (sound familiar?). The USAF program at this point looked at air launch, ground launch, air breathing and rocket, air to air and air to ground. This was the Hypersonic Glide Vehicle program. OBB's image shows some of the proposed GD HGV configurations at that point. There are some other images on the forum of models, etc. that depict the same vehicle.

At this point the DARPA effort was well along. Some parts had been flight demonstrated (SWERVE) and some were maturing in labs and almost ready for flight test or demonstration (GPS INS guidance, terminal X-band seeker). But no service really took interest or ownership and the program died. The air force program generated a lot of paper studies and some tech development in labs but that seems to be it. The likelyhood of some covert flight test of a glide vehicle is small - that would be difficult to conceal.
 
Boost-glide model found on Ebay. Bidding closes in less than an hour.

From the seller's description: "THIS AUCTION IS FOR A RARE EXECUTIVE DESK MODEL ROCKET. THE ROCKET IS A " BOOST - GLIDE VEHICLE. THIS JUST CAME OUT OF AN ESTATE FROM AN EMPLOYEE THAT WORKED AT WRIGHT PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE. I BOUGHT THIS MODEL AND OTHERS THAT I WILL BE LISTING. THIS ROCKET LOOKS TO BE MADE OF SOLID ALUMINUM OR SOME TYPE OF HARD COMPOSITE. THE BOOST VEHICLE IS 12" LONG. PLEASE LOOK AT MY OTHER AUCTIONS FOR MORE GREAT ESTATE FINDS"

 

Attachments

  • s-l400 (5).jpg
    s-l400 (5).jpg
    27.8 KB · Views: 99
  • s-l400 (6).jpg
    s-l400 (6).jpg
    25.6 KB · Views: 90
  • s-l400 (7).jpg
    s-l400 (7).jpg
    21.5 KB · Views: 87
  • s-l400 (8).jpg
    s-l400 (8).jpg
    17.6 KB · Views: 92
Boost-glide model found on Ebay. Bidding closes in less than an hour.

From the seller's description: "THIS AUCTION IS FOR A RARE EXECUTIVE DESK MODEL ROCKET. THE ROCKET IS A " BOOST - GLIDE VEHICLE. THIS JUST CAME OUT OF AN ESTATE FROM AN EMPLOYEE THAT WORKED AT WRIGHT PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE. I BOUGHT THIS MODEL AND OTHERS THAT I WILL BE LISTING. THIS ROCKET LOOKS TO BE MADE OF SOLID ALUMINUM OR SOME TYPE OF HARD COMPOSITE. THE BOOST VEHICLE IS 12" LONG. PLEASE LOOK AT MY OTHER AUCTIONS FOR MORE GREAT ESTATE FINDS"


The whole page has now vanished…

This seems to be related to another model discussed elsewhere in this forum: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/minuteman-boost-glide-vehicle.26249/

wherein a combined Minuteman/BGV model sold on ebay and similar to the one shown here above.

A.
 

Attachments

  • 1_1048493a25689750490692869e7c3e22.jpg
    1_1048493a25689750490692869e7c3e22.jpg
    20.6 KB · Views: 52
  • 1_1048493a25689750490692869e7c3e22 (1).jpg
    1_1048493a25689750490692869e7c3e22 (1).jpg
    34.8 KB · Views: 49
  • 1_1048493a25689750490692869e7c3e22 (2).jpg
    1_1048493a25689750490692869e7c3e22 (2).jpg
    30.3 KB · Views: 45
  • 1_1048493a25689750490692869e7c3e22 (4).jpg
    1_1048493a25689750490692869e7c3e22 (4).jpg
    36.5 KB · Views: 40
  • 1_1048493a25689750490692869e7c3e22 (3).jpg
    1_1048493a25689750490692869e7c3e22 (3).jpg
    36.4 KB · Views: 38
  • 1_1048493a25689750490692869e7c3e22 (5).jpg
    1_1048493a25689750490692869e7c3e22 (5).jpg
    33.9 KB · Views: 39
  • 1_1048493a25689750490692869e7c3e22 (6).jpg
    1_1048493a25689750490692869e7c3e22 (6).jpg
    20 KB · Views: 39
  • 1_1048493a25689750490692869e7c3e22 (7).jpg
    1_1048493a25689750490692869e7c3e22 (7).jpg
    35.3 KB · Views: 36
  • 1_1048493a25689750490692869e7c3e22 (9).jpg
    1_1048493a25689750490692869e7c3e22 (9).jpg
    39.1 KB · Views: 41
  • 1_1048493a25689750490692869e7c3e22 (8).jpg
    1_1048493a25689750490692869e7c3e22 (8).jpg
    39.7 KB · Views: 49
...
 

Attachments

  • 1_2e6ab661183b6afb0cf643ac44948205 (3).jpg
    1_2e6ab661183b6afb0cf643ac44948205 (3).jpg
    30 KB · Views: 48
  • 1_2e6ab661183b6afb0cf643ac44948205 (2).jpg
    1_2e6ab661183b6afb0cf643ac44948205 (2).jpg
    25 KB · Views: 47
  • 1_2e6ab661183b6afb0cf643ac44948205.jpg
    1_2e6ab661183b6afb0cf643ac44948205.jpg
    23.9 KB · Views: 45
  • 1_2e6ab661183b6afb0cf643ac44948205 (1).jpg
    1_2e6ab661183b6afb0cf643ac44948205 (1).jpg
    105.7 KB · Views: 47
...
 

Attachments

  • 1_0cd058c295985d637f504aaab100552f.jpg
    1_0cd058c295985d637f504aaab100552f.jpg
    245 KB · Views: 43
  • 1_0cd058c295985d637f504aaab100552f (1).jpg
    1_0cd058c295985d637f504aaab100552f (1).jpg
    360 KB · Views: 40
  • 1_0cd058c295985d637f504aaab100552f (2).jpg
    1_0cd058c295985d637f504aaab100552f (2).jpg
    162.4 KB · Views: 34
  • 1_0cd058c295985d637f504aaab100552f (3).jpg
    1_0cd058c295985d637f504aaab100552f (3).jpg
    162 KB · Views: 32
  • 1_0cd058c295985d637f504aaab100552f (4).jpg
    1_0cd058c295985d637f504aaab100552f (4).jpg
    156.9 KB · Views: 31
  • 1_0cd058c295985d637f504aaab100552f (5).jpg
    1_0cd058c295985d637f504aaab100552f (5).jpg
    147.7 KB · Views: 30
  • 1_0cd058c295985d637f504aaab100552f (6).jpg
    1_0cd058c295985d637f504aaab100552f (6).jpg
    163.1 KB · Views: 31
Better quality photos of the initial post eBay lot
 

Attachments

  • 1_ecbf0a71ba67a83b108cbf46381a2069.jpg
    1_ecbf0a71ba67a83b108cbf46381a2069.jpg
    289.3 KB · Views: 31
  • 1_ecbf0a71ba67a83b108cbf46381a2069 (1).jpg
    1_ecbf0a71ba67a83b108cbf46381a2069 (1).jpg
    265.5 KB · Views: 32
  • 1_ecbf0a71ba67a83b108cbf46381a2069 (3).jpg
    1_ecbf0a71ba67a83b108cbf46381a2069 (3).jpg
    142.6 KB · Views: 34
  • 1_ecbf0a71ba67a83b108cbf46381a2069 (2).jpg
    1_ecbf0a71ba67a83b108cbf46381a2069 (2).jpg
    230.7 KB · Views: 53
The image is not of an HGV model, but of Isinglass. Isinglass was not a GD project.

In the late 70s and early 80s DARPA pursued a program to demonstrate an air launched ballistic missile with hypersonic glider for air-to-air. This was the Ballistic Intercept Missile. The reentry vehicle was to be SWERVE. LORAINE was the guidance and seeker package. The thinking was that this missile could be used to shoot down bombers threatening the US or carrier groups.
That sounds so weird... running an Sanger-Bredt boost glider as an intercept missile?!?

At the same time USAF was pursuing their boost glide vehicle for hitting ground targets, and the navy had their own program. In 1987 congress ordered that the DARPA, USAF. and Navy programs be consolidated (sound familiar?). The USAF program at this point looked at air launch, ground launch, air breathing and rocket, air to air and air to ground. This was the Hypersonic Glide Vehicle program. OBB's image shows some of the proposed GD HGV configurations at that point. There are some other images on the forum of models, etc. that depict the same vehicle.
"Why are there 3 different programs for the same job?"
"Because they're NOT the same job, Congressman."

Though it looks like the USN and USAF programs, both being ground strike, could have been combined. Question would have been what launcher the Navy wanted to use. I'd guess Poseidon, but it's bad juju to launch a non-nuclear strike from a nuclear capable location...
 
That sounds so weird... running an Sanger-Bredt boost glider as an intercept missile?!?

More like what the Army and Navy are working on today using a SWERVE based RV (AHW). Ballistic missile with a gliding RV. Air and surface launch.

Though it looks like the USN and USAF programs, both being ground strike, could have been combined. Question would have been what launcher the Navy wanted to use. I'd guess Poseidon, but it's bad juju to launch a non-nuclear strike from a nuclear capable location...

USAF program had 3 different roles, 2 different launch methods

USN program was totally different, a fast but conventional SAM (IIRC, Wide Area Defense Missile). Not a ballistic missile.
 
More like what the Army and Navy are working on today using a SWERVE based RV (AHW). Ballistic missile with a gliding RV. Air and surface launch.
Yes, but DARPA was doing some weird extreme range interceptor missile?

USAF program had 3 different roles, 2 different launch methods

USN program was totally different, a fast but conventional SAM (IIRC, Wide Area Defense Missile). Not a ballistic missile.
Okay, so DARPA and USAF could maybe have been combined. Navy would have been the missile to defend against the RuAF equivalent of the USAF missile.
 
All of them were ordered to combine efforts. DARPA had demonstrated several key technologies and were working on the seeker. Notably, they demonstrated the SWERVE RV, communications and radar during reentry, and miniature GPS/INS guidance (first of its kind).

USAF kept doing their own thing, ignored DARPA efforts to work with them. All 3 programs were dead within a couple of years.
 
All of them were ordered to combine efforts. DARPA had demonstrated several key technologies and were working on the seeker. Notably, they demonstrated the SWERVE RV, communications and radar during reentry, and miniature GPS/INS guidance (first of its kind).

USAF kept doing their own thing, ignored DARPA efforts to work with them. All 3 programs were dead within a couple of years.
Were ordered to combine, when the USN could have maybe borrowed the DARPA interceptor seeker, and that's it.

A few idiots left over from McNamara's whiz kids, I see.
 
Were ordered to combine, when the USN could have maybe borrowed the DARPA interceptor seeker, and that's it.

A few idiots left over from McNamara's whiz kids, I see.

DARPA tried to work with both USAF and USN to host the LORRAINE seeker and guidance system. USAF more or less ignored them. DARPA did talk to USN - specifically proposing to host the system on SLAT/ASALM, which went nowhere. As usual, none of the services were interested in taking anything DARPA had demonstrated to the next step.

The irony of course being that today USN and US Army are using the RV that DARPA demonstrated (with Sandia) as the basis of their hypersonic weapons.
 
One more reason ABMA never should have been killed. The hostility towards rockets from the other branches is not surprising.
 
One more reason ABMA never should have been killed. The hostility towards rockets from the other branches is not surprising.

Organizationally, I think the Russians had the right idea. The Strategic Rocket Forces as a completely separate branch, equal in authority to the Army or Navy.
 
They were actually a bit ahead…where we had the Triad…they had the Big Wheel…with Sputnik. Nikita saw it as a way to spend less on a blue water navy.

That made him enemies no doubt.

I am so very glad early nukes were heavy ;)

I understand artillery men run R-7 pads…at least until recently.

Medaris’ book COUNTDOWN FOR DECISION is a must read.
 
One more reason ABMA never should have been killed. The hostility towards rockets from the other branches is not surprising.
More misinformation. ABMA wasn't "killed", abolished or disbanded. It just was renamed MICOM. ABMA continued to exist after Von Braun went to NASA. It and MICOM continued to develop missiles. Pershing was the missile program after Jupiter.

Bigger loss was JPL.

Also, unrelated to this topic.
 
Last edited:
Organizationally, I think the Russians had the right idea. The Strategic Rocket Forces as a completely separate branch, equal in authority to the Army or Navy.
Not really needed. US ICBMs were basically a separate service. SAC was DOD specified command. The missile procurement bypassed Air Staff. Also, notice they didn't go to Space Force. Missiles in AF Space Command didn't work. Missile ops is not the same space launch ops.
 
They were actually a bit ahead…where we had the Triad…they had the Big Wheel…with Sputnik. Nikita saw it as a way to spend less on a blue water navy.
Actually, no they weren't. They was no missile or bomber gap. Actually, the US had more missiles.
I am so very glad early nukes were heavy ;)
Why? The Soviets weren't able to translate the additional lift capability of the missiles into anything of real benefit.
I understand artillery men run R-7 pads…at least until recently.
Conscripts providing cheap manual manpower. No real benefit to anybody. The conscripts leave after their 4 years.
Medaris’ book COUNTDOWN FOR DECISION is a must read.
One man's porochial view and not the gospel. Also, he wasn't involved with the big picture.
Wasn't involved with ICBMs. Wasn't involved with spysats.
 
Not really needed. US ICBMs were basically a separate service. SAC was DOD specified command. The missile procurement bypassed Air Staff. Also, notice they didn't go to Space Force. Missiles in AF Space Command didn't work. Missile ops is not the same space launch ops.
Makes half the nuclear delivery mission not-the-USAF in terms of responsibility. (okay, 1/3 once the Navy gets Polaris working)

Which would hopefully get USAF more focused on dropping conventional bombs and supporting the ground troops as the other half of their mission.

Then again, the Soviets also split their Air Force into two separate organizations, PVO and VSS. PVO is analogous to USAF Air Defense Command, VSS is not exactly a direct map to USAF Tactical Air Command. VSS was much more concerned about supporting the Red Army than USAF TAC was. Fighters in VSS existed to escort the Shturmoviks, full stop.
 
The BGV/SBGV primary mission was an unmanned hypersonic interceptor. It was intended to launch AAMs at targets (bombers and cruise missiles).

Keep in mind this was about 10 feet long, launched on a Minuteman I or on a notional air launched booster (originally Longbow, after that various ideas to get it to fit a B-1)

How they would deploy missiles, how those missiles would work, how any of this would find targets were all apparently questions they would figure out later somehow.

It did also have ground attack and recon missions.
 

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom