• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

US hypersonic weapons projects. (General)

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
589
Reaction score
53
I forgot about Grog.
 
Last edited:

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
20
Credit goes to those who do, not those who dream of doing.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,330
Reaction score
76
Plus, everyone knows that the German rocket scientists stole everything from Goddard :)
 

AN/AWW-14(V)

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
107
Reaction score
131


The Air Force achieved a major milestone yesterday when it completed the first captive-carry test of a new hypersonic weapon at Edwards Air Force Base, CA. According to a statement published by the service, a sensor-only version of the Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon AGM-183A was carried externally by a B-52 aircraft. It gathered data on "drag and vibration impacts on the weapon itself and on the external carriage equipment of the aircraft."

 
Last edited:

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,123
Reaction score
366
Wonder if they'll show a picture.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,123
Reaction score
366
Pentagon Ground Tests Fighter-Jet Launched Hypersonic Weapon

...

“In the last year, China has tested more hypersonic weapons than we have in a decade. We’ve got to fix that,” said Michael Griffin, the Undersecretary of Defense for Research and Engineering, according to an Air Force report from February of this year.

...

“We are flying a HAWC system…ground tests have already happened. The whole point is to simulate what you would experience in flight, so you can create the correct thermal environment. You can model and measure the heat in the vehicle and you can measure the material properties,” Dr. Thomas Bussing, Vice President, Raytheon Missile Systems, told Warrior in an interview. “You can’t test range (with a ground test), but you can measure performance, lift of the vehicle and thrust, attributes from which you can infer range.”

 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,123
Reaction score
366
"Air Force Conducts Successful Hypersonic Weapon Flight Test"

(Annoyingly click-baity title but what are you gonna do with today's standards?)

"ARLINGTON, Va. --- The U.S. Air Force successfully conducted the first flight test of its AGM-183A Air Launched Rapid Response Weapon, or ARRW, on a B-52 Stratofortress aircraft on June 12 at Edwards Air Force Base, California.

A sensor-only version of the ARRW prototype was carried externally by a B-52 during the test to gather environmental and aircraft handling data.

The test gathered data on drag and vibration impacts on the weapon itself and on the external carriage equipment of the aircraft. The prototype did not have explosives and it was not released from the B-52 during the flight test. This type of data collection is required for all Air Force weapon systems undergoing development."


(Ye Gods, editing posts suuuuuuucks with the new forum software.)
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,936
Reaction score
185
Hopefully the US is finally at the “let’s put our full available resources” behind this technology stage of development
 

TAOG

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
33
Reaction score
18
What is the max speed of the ARRW? I have seen many articles claim that it can reach Mach 20, really? I doubt it.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,947
Reaction score
30
What is the max speed of the ARRW? I have seen many articles claim that it can reach Mach 20, really? I doubt it.
I don't know why you doubt it unless you have actual hard information from the program that claims otherwise. Multiple publications have referenced Mach 20 for the TBG/ARRW and this sounds about right for the type of weapon it is envisioned. Lockheed and DARPA have had nearly a decade post HTV-2 to work to solve some of the challenges associated with such type of weapons and incorporate lessons learned and other improvements since then.

The ARRW, now assigned the designation AGM-183A, evolves from the Tactical Boost Glide (TBG) programme launched in 2014 by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). By using a rocket to boost the missile to very high altitudes, the unpowered ARRW then glides down to lower altitudes at speeds up to Mach 20.
 
Last edited:

TAOG

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
33
Reaction score
18
What is the max speed of the ARRW? I have seen many articles claim that it can reach Mach 20, really? I doubt it.
I don't know why you doubt it unless you have actual hard information from the program that claims otherwise. Multiple publications have referenced Mach 20 for the TBG/ARRW and this sounds about right for the type of weapon it is envisioned. Lockheed and DARPA have had nearly a decade post HTV-2 to work to solve some of the challenges associated with such type of weapons and incorporate lessons learned and other improvements since then.

The ARRW, now assigned the designation AGM-183A, evolves from the Tactical Boost Glide (TBG) programme launched in 2014 by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). By using a rocket to boost the missile to very high altitudes, the unpowered ARRW then glides down to lower altitudes at speeds up to Mach 20.
That's what i want and searching for... Does there have any hard information (not the news but the documents provided by the government, contractor, or the statement from the people who participated or related to the program. ) about the Mach 20 speed ? Thedrive recently reports that "DARPA has said that it expected TBG to hit Mach 20 as it screamed back to earth. ", but i still don't find the source (darpa) now. Do you have any idea about that?
 
Last edited:

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
404
Reaction score
108
There's a link here that states Mach 20 but I'm very sceptical about something that size having enough propellant to reach Mach 20 while carrying a significant payload.

The first weapon, the AGM-183A Advanced Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW, pronounced “Arrow”) is an outgrowth of the DARPA’s Tactical Boost Glide program. ARRW is a rocket carried aloft by an aircraft such as a B-52 bomber and has a top speed of up to Mach 20.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,123
Reaction score
366
 
Last edited:

TAOG

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
33
Reaction score
18
Or this is not the entire design? Maybe there is still a booster (which doesn't be integrated this time) and this is just the second stage?
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
404
Reaction score
108

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,123
Reaction score
366
Maybe that thing that was shown on the B-52 is only the upper stage of the missile.
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
404
Reaction score
108
Maybe that thing that was shown on the B-52 is only the upper stage of the missile.
I have a feeling it is the whole thing having read about ArcLight. If a 6.5m long 533mm missile can deliver a 90kg warhead 2,000nm, then the same missile increased to 800mm diameter can probably carry a 200kg warhead the same distance and if you can carry a dozen of them, that helps target saturation.

Although, it would make some sense to maybe base a longer range weapon around the same final stage. 20,000lbs is enormous though. A Pershing II was only 16,500lb. HCSW is supposedly bigger than ARRW though I thought.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
139
Incorporating only the upper stage would make absolutely no sense for a carry test. Not having part of the missile body attached would completely invalidate any aerodynamic or vibroacoutic data collected during the flight. Also, why would the suspension lugs be on the upper stage?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,123
Reaction score
366
Incorporating only the upper stage would make absolutely no sense for a carry test. Not having part of the missile body attached would completely invalidate any aerodynamic or vibroacoutic data collected during the flight. Also, why would the suspension lugs be on the upper stage?
Why fly a Pershing II like this:

View attachment 615499
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
139
Incorporating only the upper stage would make absolutely no sense for a carry test. Not having part of the missile body attached would completely invalidate any aerodynamic or vibroacoutic data collected during the flight. Also, why would the suspension lugs be on the upper stage?
Why fly a Pershing II like this:

View attachment 615499
That's not a Pershing II, it's a Pershing Ib, which was originally developed as a limited range version for the German Air Force to comply with SALT II. (The US also used them for some testing due to range limits at White Sands.)

It represents an actual operational configuration for Pershing, and would have required some separate testing from the Pershing II, because it was a different weapon in important ways.

Leaving off the booster in a captive-carry test of an air-launched missile would only make sense if the upper stage alone was an operational configuration. That seems unlikely in this case.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,123
Reaction score
366
Yes, I knew it was an actual configuration (though no idea if they actually deployed any like that). That was kind of my point. I'm not necessarily claiming the shape shown on the B-52 has an additional booster. I was speculating that maybe it does. (Or else there's some other 20,000lb weapon in mind.)

615502aybe
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
139
Point being, if the weapon does include a booster stage, not doing the aerodynamic testing with the booster stage is useless. Worse, actually, because it wastes time and resources testing a configuration that would have no relevance to the operational weapon. So this is clearly the whole weapon and there will not be a booster, at least not initially.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,123
Reaction score
366
Point being, if the weapon does include a booster stage, not doing the aerodynamic testing with the booster stage is useless. Worse, actually, because it wastes time and resources testing a configuration that would have no relevance to the operational weapon. So this is clearly the whole weapon and there will not be a booster, at least not initially.
I'm not arguing that point. I think you missed mine. If there is a configuration with a booster that could account for the 20,000lb weight. That is all.
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
404
Reaction score
108
Point being, if the weapon does include a booster stage, not doing the aerodynamic testing with the booster stage is useless. Worse, actually, because it wastes time and resources testing a configuration that would have no relevance to the operational weapon. So this is clearly the whole weapon and there will not be a booster, at least not initially.
I think what was suggested is that what is shown might be one complete weapon and the same thing with a booster might be another complete weapon. Sort of like a Derby and Derby-MR. But that's a complete guess, the 20,000lb weapon might just be a completely different weapon.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,237
Reaction score
139
Point being, if the weapon does include a booster stage, not doing the aerodynamic testing with the booster stage is useless. Worse, actually, because it wastes time and resources testing a configuration that would have no relevance to the operational weapon. So this is clearly the whole weapon and there will not be a booster, at least not initially.
I think what was suggested is that what is shown might be one complete weapon and the same thing with a booster might be another complete weapon. Sort of like a Derby and Derby-MR. But that's a complete guess, the 20,000lb weapon might just be a completely different weapon.
Oh, OK, I see that. I suspect it's not likely, since the speed regimes for the two notional configurations would be really different, implying different payload vehicles. The 20,000-pound weapon is probably something else entirely.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,936
Reaction score
185
Point being, if the weapon does include a booster stage, not doing the aerodynamic testing with the booster stage is useless. Worse, actually, because it wastes time and resources testing a configuration that would have no relevance to the operational weapon. So this is clearly the whole weapon and there will not be a booster, at least not initially.
I think what was suggested is that what is shown might be one complete weapon and the same thing with a booster might be another complete weapon. Sort of like a Derby and Derby-MR. But that's a complete guess, the 20,000lb weapon might just be a completely different weapon.
Oh, OK, I see that. I suspect it's not likely, since the speed regimes for the two notional configurations would be really different, implying different payload vehicles. The 20,000-pound weapon is probably something else entirely.
Let’s hope there’s a half dozen weapons in development.
 

TAOG

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
33
Reaction score
18
Information provided by aw&st

...
“The air-breathers have now evolved to the point where they’re actually more mature [than boost-glide systems],” says Tom Bussing, vice president of Raytheon
...
For the Air Force, the testing schedule still puts the boosted biconic glider, called HCSW, in the lead by about three months over HAWC and ARRW, Roper added. But the rising confidence in the maturity of the HAWC designs has revived prospects to secure funding for scramjet-powered weapons.
...
The Pentagon’s schedule calls for staging 15 hypersonic flight tests by 2021 and 40 overall by the end of 2023
...
“The goal is fly TBG this year and, if not, the latest would be early next year,” says Lockheed Martin Skunk Works Vice President
...
Meanwhile, Raytheon continues to develop its version of a winged glider under the TBG program as an alternative to Lockheed’s AGM-183A ARRW. The company’s goal is not to deliver a “me-too” version of the Lockheed design but something even more capable.
“We focused on capabilities that we don’t believe ARRW has,” Bussing says. “So I would look at Raytheon’s TBG solution as maybe the ARRW-2.”
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,123
Reaction score
366
Yeah, there's a lot of that kind of stuff in other topics on this site. This topic is pretty much for the current programs.
 

TAOG

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Oct 8, 2018
Messages
33
Reaction score
18
This was already been reported brefore.

"...Lastly, the F-15EX is seen as a reliable launch pad for new, larger weapons, in particular hypersonic missiles that will not fit inside the F-35A's internal weapons bay, the source notes.

"We've got to carry a [7,000lb] to 8,000lb weapon that is enormous and doesn't fit in an internal bay," says the source. "And we need a very reliable platform that we well understand, that has power, space and cooling, and we can adapt quickly over the next 10, 12 or 15 years."..."



 
Top