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

US hypersonic weapons projects. (General)

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
86
Reaction score
27
Just do a quick search here. I think you may be confusing HCSW with HAWC. The latter is a DARPA run scramjet missile demonstrator while the former is an Air Force program to field the common boost glide system as an AL application.
I know HAWC is scramjet, it just that several source such as the one I cited earlier said HCSW is scramjet too so I am somewhat confuse.
Nevertheless, looking at how much they spend on each program, I think HCSW has the chance to go into production while HAWC will go no where, like seriously what they gonna do with only 24 $ millions? But that probably reasonable, if you can put a boost glider weapon on tactical fighter then why bother with scramjet weapon anymore? Boost glider weapons can fly much faster, fly much further and could be with smaller infrared signature because they don't have engine. The only pros of scramjet weapon is probably smaller total size, but after the booster is dropped then boost glider weapon is probably smaller too.

0E98DAA3-864E-4936-AA71-F32410955A39.png
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
35
HAWC is not just a 24 million dollar program as you are implying based on the graphic which covers the FYDP. HAWC closes out with testing later in FY20 hence the small funding request. Most of the money on it had been spent in prior years and any future commitment would be contingent on test results and would therefore not be a part of the data based on FY20 budget materials. The program transitions to the USAF post FY20.

The several sources cited are wrong imho as I see no indication of that based on any source that I would consider credible or well informed. HCSW, AHW and CPS are connected in that they all leverage the common glide body based on the swerve.
 
Last edited:

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
86
Reaction score
27
HCSW, AHW and CPS are connected in that they all leverage the common glide body based on the swerve.
Will they have similar range as well? Or only similar scaleable design?.
Im curious why they go with the conical glider body though, shouldn't flat body give better L/D characteristic?
 

Josh_TN

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
41
Reaction score
10
HCSW, AHW and CPS are connected in that they all leverage the common glide body based on the swerve.
Will they have similar range as well? Or only similar scaleable design?.
Im curious why they go with the conical glider body though, shouldn't flat body give better L/D characteristic?
I assume that the Army, USAF, and USN missiles that use the biconical glider have similar ranges, with the USAF probably going further, faster since it is launched from altitude (although it uses a different booster so that isn't a given). I think the biconical glider was used because it represented less development - it was a more mature design that was easier to rush into service. I suspect later versions of these missile programs will adapt a new glider at some point when that technology matures. For now, the SWERVE glider represents less technical risk for the three projects it is used in.
 

Flyaway

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
2,451
Reaction score
347
Isn’t a lot of stuff in this thread going to double up in the Global Strike thread?
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
35
From the Morgan Stanley 7th Annual Laguna Conference last month:

RAJEEV LALWANI: You touched on hypersonics. Obviously the buzzword in the industry. But that being said, can you talk about how you're performing versus your peers? I think the narrative out there is that you're sort of not winning your fair share. Is that fair or unfair?

THOMAS A. KENNEDY: I think it's unfair. And let me first step back because you can't look at hypersonics without looking at counter-hypersonics. There's a whole new market. And this new market is the fact that things are going to be flying at Mach 5 or faster. And you have to -- and it can either be the things that you have or the things that the threat can have. But in any case, that marketplace is providing those type of systems that can fly faster than Mach 5. And then under that market, then you've got to counter those things that fly faster than Mach 5.

It turns out the harder problem is countering those things that fly higher than Mach 5. And it's actually a bigger market because not only do you have to have the effect that counters the weapon, but you also have to have the sensing capability and the command-and-control that can very quickly detect that target, that hypersonic target, track that hypersonic target and then hand it off in the right way to an effect that can be applied against it to take it out.

So we're in both of those markets. So let me start on the market on the hypersonics. So we are involved in the 2 key programs at DARPA and we're prime on those programs. One is called the HAWC program, which is a hypersonic air breathing weapon concept. The other one is a Tactical Boost Glide. And that's kind of the breakout of these 2 areas.

We're also involved in the Navy's conventional prompt strike under a subcontract to -- from Lockheed and then a recent contract came out to -- from the U.S. Army to a company called Dynetics to do a glide body work and we're under -- working on that element of that program. So -- and there are several classified air programs -- because I can't get into too much detail here but they're all in the hypersonic area.

We've actually had to build a whole building in Tucson, Arizona just because of the hypersonic work. So we are actively involved in hypersonics. It's a new area for us. It's an expansion area and so we're all in on that.

On the other side of it, I mentioned R stands for radar and also Raytheon, we are developing next generation sensors to be able to track these hypersonic weapons and so we're getting significant amount of funding for that technology. There's -- the -- because of these hypersonics and the speed of these hypersonic weapons, the U.S. government has an issue relative to being able to detect -- they can detect them, but being able to track them. So there's work that's going on to develop a potentially low earth orbit constellation of satellites, we're heavily engaged in the sensor technology for that.

And then in terms of the effects, we have the effects to go counter these hypersonic missiles, including missile-on-missile. We do the hit-to-kill stuff, we know how to do that. So we're actively involved in that. And we're also involved in other effects like High-Energy Lasers, HEL, and then also high-power microwaves. And if you want to know if we play in high-power microwaves, just remember, high-power microwaves is essentially your radar with a lot of power you put out over a very short time frame. So we are very heavily involved in that.

This whole area, when you combine the hypersonics and the counter-hypersonics, is a new market for us. And obviously for the DoD, it's emerging. It's not mature yet. The department really hasn't decided where they're going to go. So they're placing bets in many areas. We're making sure that the tables those bets are being placed on are Raytheon tables and I think we're doing better than the overall market and gaining access to that -- those funds.
 

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
86
Reaction score
27
Is this just me, or the mockup we saw with F-35 is supposed to show HSCW instead of HAWC?






I suspect that because first of all the missile has no air inlet. Second of all, in the links they said
Lockheed Martin has revealed a concept for a variant of its air-launched Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept hypersonic missile, or HAWC, as an armament option for U.S. Navy's F-35C Joint Strike Fighter, and potentially other aircraft, possibly in a maritime strike role. HAWC, which has so far been under development as a land attack weapon, is set to fly for the first time before the end of the year. The artist's conception of an F-35C firing a HAWC derivative first appeared at the Navy League's annual Sea, Air, Space convention just outside of Washington, D.C., on May 6, 2019. The rendering shows the stealth aircraft configured to carry two of these weapons externally, one under each wing. In April 2018, the U.S. Air Force, working together with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), awarded Lockheed Martin a contract worth approximately $928 million for the development of HAWC.

But in another source, I can find
The U.S. Air Force has awarded contracts to defense giant Lockheed Martin to develop two new hypersonic weapon systems. The contracts are in response to the rapid development of hypersonics in Russia and China, a development that could challenge U.S. technological superiority.

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. This makes it up to four times faster than Russian and Chinese hypersonic weapons, including Starry Sky 2 and Kinzhal. The Air Force recently awarded Lockheed Martin a $480 million contract to develop the ARRW, with an eye towards operational capability in 2021.
The second weapon is the Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon (HCSW, or “Hacksaw”). A solid fuel rocket with GPS guidance, HCSW is also designed to be carried by aircraft with a planned in-service date of 2022. Lockheed Martin received $928 million to work on Hacksaw in April 2018.

And Lockheed has an ever larger contract, $928 million, to build a different kind of hypersonic system, also for the Air Force, called the Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon (HCSW)
 
Last edited:

Lc89

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
29
Reaction score
6
Will the Next Generation Land Attack Weapon (NGLAW) replace the Tomahawk be a hypersonic cruise missile with scramjet? Could the Hawc program be involved?
 
Last edited:

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
35
Will the Next Generation Land Attack Weapon (NGLAW) replace the Tomahawk be a hypersonic cruise missile with scramjet? Could the Hawc program be involved? )
That will be not known for quite a while still. I believe an AOA in supporting that program is either still ongoing or recently concluded so it will be some time till we get some direction on that. It would be logical to assume that everything from hypersonic to Low RCS subsonic missile would be an option. I’m also not sure that the NGLAW would be the only strike weapon coming into the VLS. I expect some sort of CPS capability to come in as well.
 

Lc89

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
29
Reaction score
6
Anyway, I had read that the Hawc missile could also be launched from land and naval platforms in the future. And so I thought this means that the missile would end up in Vls cells or submarine torpedo tubes, like the tomahawk.
 

seruriermarshal

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
930
Reaction score
37
Lockheed Martin:“Hypersonic development is advancing around the globe. We’re ahead of the game in advancing this next-gen technology,” Lockheed Martin said on its Twitter account.


 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
35
Anyway, I had read that the Hawc missile could also be launched from land and naval platforms in the future. And so I thought this means that the missile would end up in Vls cells or submarine torpedo tubes, like the tomahawk.
A hypersonic option would most definitely be included in the trade space. Will it be the HAWC? I doubt it. I think NGLAW would pretty much need to match or exceed the range of the Tomahawk. Good thing is that their is a scramjet propulsion system funded and currently being tested that is roughly 10X compared to that on the X-51 and can be used for larger missiles. The engine could be in flight tests as early as FY-22 if all goes to plan. It could potentially support a post-2030 weapons program. Would the Navy be willing to take the risk though? I'm not sure. I think a less risky option may well be to seek a stealthy, subsonic cruise missile and a boost-glide based CPS system for the VLS all part of a Next Generation Strike Weapon - Family of Systems as the Navy wants.
 

Attachments

Lc89

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
29
Reaction score
6
Anyway, I had read that the Hawc missile could also be launched from land and naval platforms in the future. And so I thought this means that the missile would end up in Vls cells or submarine torpedo tubes, like the tomahawk.
A hypersonic option would most definitely be included in the trade space. Will it be the HAWC? I doubt it. I think NGLAW would pretty much need to match or exceed the range of the Tomahawk. Good thing is that their is a scramjet propulsion system funded and currently being tested that is roughly 10X compared to that on the X-51 and can be used for larger missiles. The engine could be in flight tests as early as FY-22 if all goes to plan. It could potentially support a post-2030 weapons program. Would the Navy be willing to take the risk though? I'm not sure. I think a less risky option may well be to seek a stealthy, subsonic cruise missile and a boost-glide based CPS system for the VLS all part of a Next Generation Strike Weapon - Family of Systems as the Navy wants.
Then there is also this Aviation Week article that talks about an air-launched version of the NGLAW. Unfortunately I could not read the article because I did not subscribe to the magazine.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
35
Yes but that does not mean all of these will be just one weapon. This is likely to be a family of systems. The US Navy lacks an Air Launched long range ground attack weapon so it is logical for them to see if they can change that going forward (A future JASSM/LRASM variant would be perfect for that role and even the JSM appears to be a great option if they're looking at the MPA fleet). I don't think though that the US Navy will be willing to take anything shorter ranged than the TLAM when it comes to the VLS launched TLAM replacement. The range requirement could potentially be much greater than the Tomahawk which could make the decision to pursue a faster missile more attractive. But even there, there is a strong possibility that they acquire the capability via multiple different types of weapons over time than just one single do it all weapon..
 

Lc89

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
29
Reaction score
6
Even the US army would have an interest in buying such a weapon. In August they tested a ground-launched Tomahawk. I think a country with s300 / 400/500 air defense systems would easily destroy it, provided they do not launch a large wave of missiles, hoping that some missiles will hit the target. Not many remember it, but in 1999 the Serbs, besides having shoot down one f117 and one f16, also shot down a Tomahawk missile with a Soko J-22 Orao fighter. This is where the hypersonic factor comes into play, to avoid repeating the shooting down of a missile in combat. Of course, the fact that the Tomahawk is not as low observability as JASSM was another factor.
 
Last edited:

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
35
The US Army has its own programs to support Long Range Fires. I don't think they have indicated any need to align with a US Navy program.
 

Lc89

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
29
Reaction score
6
The US Army has its own programs to support Long Range Fires. I don't think they have indicated any need to align with a US Navy program.
I know, but I didn't talk about the army's involvement or funding for the NGLAW program. I was thinking about the fact that the army could eventually be interested in having this weapon and even buying it, just because they tested a Tomahawk launched from the ground (because of this https://www.graphicnews.com/en/pages/39480/MILITARY-U.S.-ground-launched-Tomahawk). So why instead of having a subsonic missile do they not acquire the new missile that the navy wants to get? I read that the army would like to get a new arsenal of conventional missiles to compete with those China has.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
1,954
Reaction score
35
The Tomahawk demonstration from land was something that was put together for a post INF demonstration of the capability. Army has its own hypersonic program that will field operational capability in the next few years. The Navy has barely completed its AOA for the program (if that) and is a decade or more away from fielding the said capability. Both the US Army and the Navy are partnered on the Common Hypersonic Vehicle and I believe also share some booster work. The US Army has its own Long Range Fires roadmap and as of now, no long term hypersonic cruise missile component is requested. If they feel there is a gap and a need for such a capability, I'm sure they will look at what options are out there and can deliver by their desired time-frame. But so far, the PrsM and the LRHW delivers on what they need. Right now they have not yet identified a need for such a weapon so the question of them buying into a yet to be determined Navy program is moot.
 
Last edited:

Lc89

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
29
Reaction score
6
Is the Opfires program a program similar to LRHW?
 

Ronny

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jul 20, 2019
Messages
86
Reaction score
27
Not many remember it, but in 1999 the Serbs, besides having shoot down one f117 and three f16
This number is off. I recall USA lost 3 aircraft: USAF F-117A on March 27, the USMC AV-8B Harrier on May 1, and the F-16CG-40-CF on May 2
 

Lc89

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
29
Reaction score
6
In this article it is written of a air-launched version of the CPS. It seems to me that the only navy aircraft that could carry such a large missile is the P-8 Poseidon.
 

Josh_TN

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
41
Reaction score
10
Why would the USN go down this path when they are already developing a sub launched weapon and the USAF has two air launched systems entering service in the 22-23 timeframe, plus HAWC shortly after that?
 

Josh_TN

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
41
Reaction score
10
Thanks for that, that's the first picture I've seen of a glider or mock up. It looks pretty much as I expected, though perhaps with a higher length:width ratio. There were various artist impressions but I always envisioned something like a streamlined Pershing II second stage, since that operated in a similar environment. Although it's worth noting the image right behind it has a different geometry. :)
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,198
Reaction score
393
Yeah, the model looks like the Indian Agni 2.

agni-ii_650x400_41519115266.jpg
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
425
Reaction score
118
The fins go further up the body that the Pershing II second stage or Agni 2. Presumably they're looking for greater manoeuvrability, if the mock-up is even representative.
 

Lc89

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
29
Reaction score
6
Will it be able to hit moving or relocatable targets, such as a military convoy traveling on a road or a warship sailing in the ocean?
 
Last edited:

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
425
Reaction score
118
Will it be able to hit moving or relocatable targets, such as a military convoy traveling on a road or a warship sailing in the ocean?
The latter is definitely highly likely and probably also an enemy mobile launcher.;)
 

Josh_TN

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
41
Reaction score
10
I haven't heard anybody explicitly mention guidance method - the tests to date (2011, 2017) were against a static target. I strongly suspect that it will be INS/GPS only guidance, with the possibility of allowing for an update before the terminal dive. I think terminal guidance at these speeds makes for problematic material choices - ie, heat dissipation vs RF transparency. I think anything optical would be right out. That and the USN booster seems to be only 34.5 inches wide, which would indicate a very narrow glider (the the same one is used across the CPGS, LRHW, and HCSW programs). There probably isn't a lot of room for antenna in the nose.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,031
Reaction score
205
From Inside Defense pay site

Army to open hypersonic testing facility at Texas A&M
COLLEGE STATION, TX -- Texas A&M University and Army Futures Command broke ground Saturday on the new Bush Combat Development Complex, featuring a hypersonic weapon testing facility for the Army Research Laboratory and industry
 
Top