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

US Hypersonics - Prompt Global Strike Capability

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
8,990
Reaction score
194
The bill also proposes a ban on any development of the Conventional Prompt Global Strike Weapon, or CPGS, that is unique to one platform to encourage development of a ship-based weapon. The idea is to reduce the likelihood that U.S. adversaries misinterpret the launch of a missile with conventional warheads and conclude that the missiles carry nuclear weapons.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,927
Reaction score
274
Gotta love Democrats. And yes, that's relevant. That's who's trying to shove this through. Notice how it effectively kills ALL development? All three US weapons, Navy, Air Force, and Army, are "unique to one platform". (Note they don't seem to be aware of Russia and China doing exactly what they're trying to prevent the US from doing, but then I'm pretty sure they don't care.)
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
488
Reaction score
42
Politics won't get in the way of national survival. Since World War II, weapons developers have gotten their way. However, I should note that systems don't get built once a need for them ends, but the technology survives. In any event, this appears to be an attempt to put a MIRV-type warhead on a rocket. As far as an X-60 type vehicle, it will be interesting to see what develops.

 
Last edited:

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,927
Reaction score
274
Politics won't get in the way of national survival. Since World War II, weapons developers have gotten their way. However, I should note that systems don't get built once a need for them ends, but the technology survives.
Technology on a shelf isn't worth much when two potential enemies have them in their arsenal and you've got nothin'. Worse, if you decide you wanted something it's another 10 years to field.
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
488
Reaction score
42
We have no way of knowing this. Black world projects exist to "avoid technological surprise."
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,927
Reaction score
274
We have no way of knowing this. Black world projects exist to "avoid technological surprise."
Sure. That's why we keep failing left and right when it comes to hypersonics. Also, if the pols say you can't do something the military can't just ignore them and do it anyway.
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
488
Reaction score
42
We have no way of knowing this. Black world projects exist to "avoid technological surprise."
Sure. That's why we keep failing left and right when it comes to hypersonics. Also, if the pols say you can't do something the military can't just ignore them and do it anyway.

Operation Paperclip shows how much military planners cared for the rules or politicians. Closed-door sessions do occur. Can't go giving aid or comfort to our enemies.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,927
Reaction score
274
We have no way of knowing this. Black world projects exist to "avoid technological surprise."
Sure. That's why we keep failing left and right when it comes to hypersonics. Also, if the pols say you can't do something the military can't just ignore them and do it anyway.

Operation Paperclip shows how much military planners cared for the rules or politicians. Closed-door sessions do occur. Can't go giving aid or comfort to our enemies.
You do realize Paperclip occurred over a half-century ago I trust? As for, "can't go giving aid or comfort to our enemies." happens all the time. Certainly it did under the previous administration.
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
317
Reaction score
98
The bill also proposes a ban on any development of the Conventional Prompt Global Strike Weapon, or CPGS, that is unique to one platform to encourage development of a ship-based weapon. The idea is to reduce the likelihood that U.S. adversaries misinterpret the launch of a missile with conventional warheads and conclude that the missiles carry nuclear weapons.
They could make that misinterpretation regardless of the launch platform. It's the flight path that's the issue, not the launch point surely. Something mistaken for an ICBM could also be mistaken for an SLBM.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,927
Reaction score
274
The bill also proposes a ban on any development of the Conventional Prompt Global Strike Weapon, or CPGS, that is unique to one platform to encourage development of a ship-based weapon. The idea is to reduce the likelihood that U.S. adversaries misinterpret the launch of a missile with conventional warheads and conclude that the missiles carry nuclear weapons.
They could make that misinterpretation regardless of the launch platform. It's the flight path that's the issue, not the launch point surely. Something mistaken for an ICBM could also be mistaken for an SLBM.
Yeah, their excuses don't carry much credibility. "Oh, we can't have a nuclear armed cruise missile. It might confuse people." Because, you know, it's not like nuclear-armed cruise missiles have existed for over half-century or anything. :rolleyes: And both Russia and China ALREADY HAVE the kind of missiles these people are wringing their panties over.
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
317
Reaction score
98
uses don't carry much credibility. "Oh, we can't have a nuclear armed cruise missile. It might confuse people." Because, you know, it's not like nuclear-armed cruise missiles have existed for over half-century or anything. :rolleyes: And both Russia and China ALREADY HAVE the kind of missiles these people are wringing their panties over.
Indeed, if you don't produce such conventional weapons you actually leave yourself in a position where you are more likely to end up having to use actual nukes to counter, and then the argument for not producing them goes out the window.
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
488
Reaction score
42
United Technologies and Raytheon are merging.


 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,020
Reaction score
37

Did we know Northrop and Raytheon partnered on this?
We knew Raytheon and Orbital ATK were working on hypersonics, and NG subsequently bought Orbital. But this looks like a partnership and program further along than what had previously been reported.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,927
Reaction score
274
Last edited:

Flyaway

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
2,220
Reaction score
292
The RAF has set out plans that could see the production of hypersonic planes flying at more than 3,000mph.

The Ministry of Defence has announced it is investing £10 million to develop new hypersonic engines that could be used to power manned fighter jets and drones.

As missile technology makes flying combat aircraft increasingly risky, flying up to five times the speed of sound will mean fighter jets can destroy targets before they are engaged by enemy air defences.

Unveiling the two-year project at the Air and Space Power conference on Wednesday, Air Chief Marshal Sir Stephen Hillier, the head of the air force, said the new engines would be “exploring the boundaries of technology”.

“This is not an idea, a lot of this technology exists,” he said.

“Our potential adversaries are looking at these things as well. We have noted very carefully what the Russians are doing.”

More here:

 
Last edited:

GARGEAN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
137
Reaction score
19
Good healthy kek at part about making EF or F-35 a Mach 4 aircraft.
 

GARGEAN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
137
Reaction score
19
Why would they even have a need to go that fast anyway?
Being faster than fast and higher than high is always preferable. Gives more opportunities to you and creates a lot of troubles for hostile.
 

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
562
Reaction score
58
Why would they even have a need to go that fast anyway?
Being faster than fast and higher than high is always preferable. Gives more opportunities to you and creates a lot of troubles for hostile.
To an extent yes, but Mach-4 isn't an advantage. Target acquisition and tracking is vastly more difficult and that's way before you get into possible engagment situations. And high-n-fast is an issue once you engage and need to manuever. About the only 'reason' would be intercept time, (take-off to target time) but that's a niche application.

Randy
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,927
Reaction score
274
Why would they even have a need to go that fast anyway?
Being faster than fast and higher than high is always preferable. Gives more opportunities to you and creates a lot of troubles for hostile.
To an extent yes, but Mach-4 isn't an advantage. Target acquisition and tracking is vastly more difficult and that's way before you get into possible engagment situations. And high-n-fast is an issue once you engage and need to manuever. About the only 'reason' would be intercept time, (take-off to target time) but that's a niche application.

Randy
Reading Blackbird pilot accounts, there isn't a lot of time to process really. Mach 4 would be worse.
 

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
562
Reaction score
58
Reading Blackbird pilot accounts, there isn't a lot of time to process really. Mach 4 would be worse.
I wasn't going to go into the whole thing but pretty much this as it was shown with the YF-12A issues over and above not having a 'decent' Mach-3+ deployable weapon system to use :)

Randy
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,264
Reaction score
140
I wouldn't read too much into this, at best its a demonstrator programme. Ideas that somehow Project Tempest is going to morph into a super-Foxhound type fighter are far fetched. The main result is likely to be a hypersonic cruise missile at best. The concept of a networkable node with loyal wingmen and other associated UAV assets doesn't really sit well with a Mach 4 or Mach 5 capable point-defence interceptor (shades of F.155T).
 

Forest Green

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
317
Reaction score
98
Reading Blackbird pilot accounts, there isn't a lot of time to process really. Mach 4 would be worse.
I wasn't going to go into the whole thing but pretty much this as it was shown with the YF-12A issues over and above not having a 'decent' Mach-3+ deployable weapon system to use :)

Randy
The YF-12A only had the SARH AIM-47 though, it was pre-Phoenix.
 

Flyaway

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
2,220
Reaction score
292
I wouldn't read too much into this, at best its a demonstrator programme. Ideas that somehow Project Tempest is going to morph into a super-Foxhound type fighter are far fetched. The main result is likely to be a hypersonic cruise missile at best. The concept of a networkable node with loyal wingmen and other associated UAV assets doesn't really sit well with a Mach 4 or Mach 5 capable point-defence interceptor (shades of F.155T).
I imagine it’s mostly to help produce propulsion systems for projects like the SR-72 in the US.
 

rooster

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jun 21, 2019
Messages
39
Reaction score
16
The US basically invented hypersonic weapons. A lot of these program failures are learning exercises for engineers to give new engineers first hand experience and to experiment with different technologies. There are a lot of different ways to skin that hypersonic cat, so to speak. Nothing wrong with trying new methods and failing. You learn more from failing than always succeeding. There hasn't been a need for these weapons after 1990. Only recently have potential foes risen up to a level to need them. Just like aim260 popped up out of nowhere, I would imagine there are other secret programs we dont need to publicize. Sometimes its better to look weak than to lay out all your cards. That's my theory on hypersonic weapons. The US had a monopoly on stealth for a long time. That played into not needing hypersonic weapons. Hypersonic is just another way of attacking something without being able to defend against it-just like stealth.
 

greenmartian2017

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
38
Reaction score
13
We have no way of knowing this. Black world projects exist to "avoid technological surprise."
Sure. That's why we keep failing left and right when it comes to hypersonics. Also, if the pols say you can't do something the military can't just ignore them and do it anyway.
Sferrin, who said "That's why we keep failing left and right when it comes to hypersonics"? You? What data universe set are you using to come to that conclusion?

I like to think that even the publicly accessible materials now available (and perhaps on hand on secret projects forum) indicate your statement is not correct. What can be said is this: The scramjet engines now in development for hypersonic flight differ from those that were successfully tested in the past (even from just several years ago) and it has mainly to do with materials used. That is a contant development process. And also perhaps some evolutionary development of some internal components, including classified breakthroughs.

I personally have not seen anything that indicates that:

a) The USA is behind any other nation in regards to scramjet/hypersonics development (including failure of programs); and

b) The USA doesn't have the infrastructure currently to engage in a robust scramjet/hypersonic flight test article program. Yes, I am aware of what some persons out of the Pentagon (two people whom I have seen quotations from) that claim the US doesn't have sufficient infrastructure. I disagree with these two men. If push came to shove, these two would need to be taken to a number of different facilities (both AEDC as well as LLNL if memory serves as two public examples) that are viable indicators that we have the infrastructure, and are using it. I think mainly that the quotes from those two men was more of the type of "we need more funding" vein than actual accurate exclamations.

I will add this, in regards to black projects and scramjet/hypersonic technology developments. There is plenty of legally public hints from people who should know (including presentations at various associations, including video appearing on secret projects forum here) that crew-capable vehicles are in development, along with engines to power them. And that this is successfully proceeding.

Black projects out of the past: A publicly available hint was Rene Francillon's mention in his 1982 edition of his Lockheed aircraft book. Mach 6. Also, a Kelly Johnson dinner speech from approx. February 1982 in Minneapolis where he spoke about how fast did we want to fly with winged vehicles, that it was all possible, Mach 6, Mach 8 Mach 10, Mach 12 the only factor was the money necessary to be spent.

The number of black projects (still not publicly disclosed) in which flight vehicles were built and test flown are numerous. This is not merely a handful in number. Billions have been spent cumulative, and billions more are currently being spent. All kinds of exotic technologies were, and are continuing to be, looked at.

The Russians and the Chinese could only wish they had the money and infrastructure to do what the USA has done, and continues, to do.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,927
Reaction score
274
The US basically invented hypersonic weapons.
Huh?
See "BGRV"

19670519 Atlas 119F SBGBV-2 ABRES A-1 12469K.jpg

Capturedd.PNG

"A typical BGRV flight trajectory and footprint is illustrated in Figure 12. 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. The vehicle would spin up, establish a lifting angle of attack to offset gravity, and glide with little change in attitude, managing its energy to reach the desired destination. In the target area, programmed steering equations would take over and turn the vehicle into a terminal dive and maneuver to the intended aimpoint.

Because of its enormous kinetic energy and high L/D, BGRV could glide downrange nearly 5,000 miles or turn out of plane cross range about 2,000 miles. At altitudes near 100,000 feet, there was so little atmosphere; turns took long distances to accomplish and resulted in higher loss of energy than forward fight. The entire flight to maximum range was almost 45 minutes, about twice as long as ballistic missile transit."


This was the late 60s. Did somebody else do this earlier?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,927
Reaction score
274
Sferrin, who said "That's why we keep failing left and right when it comes to hypersonics"? You? What data universe set are you using to come to that conclusion?
The one where we keep failing. You know, RATTLRS, HyFly, X-51, etc. Perhaps you could direct me to our vast list of successes to show me the errors of my ways?
 
Last edited:

seruriermarshal

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
882
Reaction score
9
Sferrin, who said "That's why we keep failing left and right when it comes to hypersonics"? You? What data universe set are you using to come to that conclusion?
The one where we keep failing. You know, RATTLRS, HyFly, X-51, etc. Perhaps you could direct me to our vast list of successes to show me the errors of my ways?
Or They changed project name then into black projects .
 

GARGEAN

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
May 7, 2018
Messages
137
Reaction score
19
So first glider re-entry vehicle, not first hypersonic weapon. Cuz technically first hypersonic weapon would be V-2 rocket.
 

greenmartian2017

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
38
Reaction score
13
Sferrin, who said "That's why we keep failing left and right when it comes to hypersonics"? You? What data universe set are you using to come to that conclusion?
The one where we keep failing. You know, RATTLRS, HyFly, X-51, etc. Perhaps you could direct me to our vast list of successes to show me the errors of my ways?
The examples that you quote weren't failures. You're acting like in a test program that there can be no failures, or tests that don't reach objectives for a program to continue to be viable. There has never been an experimental flight test regime that didn't have problems/issues. And sometimes, programs fall to political intrigues.

RATTLRS was cancelled. AFAIK, it never got to prototype stage, just mock-up. A lot of design work took place before cancellation, though. That is always applied to another subsequent venture. Corporate memory is important.

HyFly actually went to flight test of the launch vehicle and full scale engine. But prior to the two full scale powered tests that didn't fully meet flight objectives (the problems not sourced to the engine), there was a successful subscale test of the entire thing under FASST that flew under scramjet power for 15 seconds in December 2005. Based on a quick Web search, it may have been cancelled in 2009/2010 in white world activity.

X-51 successfully flew, and flew at Mach 5.1 for over 200 seconds on its fourth flight test. That is a white world record for scramjet duration.

Had the X-24C continued in its white world development, it was scheduled to fly at Mach 6 for 30 seconds, if my memory serves.

And I should add these two further comments. Other hypersonic windtunnel centers include Sandia and Lockheed. Lockheed actually had a hypersonic wind tunnel back in the 1980s. It went to at least Mach 9. I know this because of my colleagueship with Dr. John Nicolaides. He had his N-wing tested in the tunnel to that speed in a series of three tests. Not just three tests. Three series of. Some of the tests lasted between five and ten minutes in length. I actually saw the actually used test article. No scorching. Not on the lanyards, either. Then in the post-2000s Lockheed put together another one. They have a website devoted to this new windtunnel complex.


Also, you can go hypersonic without the use of scramjet engines. You can have subsonic flow ramjet engines that can push your vehicle to Mach 4, and Mach 5, even Mach 5.5. It's been done already previously in the 1970s in the United States at those speeds. At least five "advanced technology" test flights conducted by 1978. At approx. 80,000 to 85,000 foot altitude. By Marquardt.

As everyone is aware, Lockheed is working on the SR-75, and it has an associated propulsion unit that will allow the vehicle to go hypersonic for longer periods than before.

So sferrin's claim that the USA's hypersonic program has had a trend of continual failures (and thereby, by inference, is just a FUBARed enterprise overall) is not supported by publicly available facts.
 
Top