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

US Hypersonics - Prompt Global Strike Capability

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
55
Reaction score
10
Website
www.quora.com
Russia and China have not yet matched even the X-43 achievements at this stage. And that too is getting to almost a decade into the past in age.

“Developed by the NPO Mashinostroyenia Corporation and furnished with a solid propellant scramjet engine, Avangard has a claimed engagement speed of Mach 27 (32,202.36 kph). The HGV can reportedly be integrated as a multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle (MIRV) with the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces' (Raketnye voyska strategicheskogo naznacheniya - RVSN) RS-18B/UR-100UTTKh SS-19 Mod 3 'Stiletto', R-36M2, and RS-28 Sarmat intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).”

Cross Russia off your list.


US weapons manufacturer Raytheon and Northrop Grumman are developing a hypersonic missile that can travel at 4,600mph with an engine made by a 3D printer.

The project will utilize Northrop's scramjet engine technology, which uses the vehicle's high speed to forcibly compress incoming air before combustion to enable sustained flight at hypersonic speeds.

Although the group hope to reach speeds of 4,600mph (Mach 5), the top speed could actually be 16,000mph (Mach 24) according to theoretical estimates, reports the Telegraph.
 
Last edited:

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
55
Reaction score
10
Website
www.quora.com
You know Avangard isn’t air breathing like the X-43.
Scram and ramjets are all airbreathing and that is what the source has indicated which is refurbished with a scramjet by NPO. Also that is not the only source that suggested the Avangard has an engine https://ria.ru/20161028/1480214764.html. The X-43 after getting boosted to the max flight ceiling had its scramjet engine kick on next so it is possible that at lower altitudes where more oxygen is present for the scramjet to kick on for the Avangard. It is also probably the reason why it gets a +mach 7 over the HTV-2 when it descends with its engines to kick on later.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
9,123
Reaction score
230
You know Avangard isn’t air breathing like the X-43.
Scram and ramjets are all airbreathing and that is what the source has indicated which is refurbished with a scramjet by NPO. Also that is not the only source that suggested the Avangard has an engine https://ria.ru/20161028/1480214764.html. The X-43 after getting boosted to the max flight ceiling had its scramjet engine kick on next so it is possible that at lower altitudes where more oxygen is present for the scramjet to kick on for the Avangard. It is also probably the reason why it gets a +mach 7 over the HTV-2 when it descends with its engines to kick on later.
Avangard with not have a scramjet attached to it.

A small solid rocket to boost in the final phase of flight? I give little chance of that given the limited throw weight and tight confines of an ICBM nosecone.

Bottom line they have not yet demonstrated X-43 type flight to my knowledge which was the point of the first post in this string.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,322
Reaction score
426
IAD is correct in surmization. The USA has never been behind any other nation in the field of hypersonics, not at any time, and is not behind today.
LOL! How many such weapons systems (not research vehicles) is the US fielding right now? Zero you say? How many are they even flight testing? Zero again you say? That alone puts them behind both Russia and China, both whom have either deployed or have in flight testing hypersonic weapons. (And no, we're not talking about ballistic missiles.)
 

greenmartian2017

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
46
Reaction score
15
Please keep in mind that the Avangard system has many of the bells and whistles of US developments from the late 1960s and early 1970s on maneuverable RVs.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,322
Reaction score
426
Please keep in mind that the Avangard system has many of the bells and whistles of US developments from the late 1960s and early 1970s on maneuverable RVs.
Yeah? Which of those are in service? Skybolt, the Atlas-launched BGRV, and others were sweet. None made it into service let alone are in service today.
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
55
Reaction score
10
Website
www.quora.com
Avangard with not have a scramjet attached to it.

A small solid rocket to boost in the final phase of flight? I give little chance of that given the limited throw weight and tight confines of an ICBM nosecone.

Bottom line they have not yet demonstrated X-43 type flight to my knowledge which was the point of the first post in this string.
No worries I will start mentioning U.S. projects here but with comparisons.

waverider.jpg

The avangard is estimated at 5.4 meters so in comparison to this waverider here there might be room for the warhead. Another consideration is we sort of have to thank them for the kholod project research. they are now making scramjets the length of 3 meters https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/gll-8.htm and that this comes along

IL-76 drones.jpg

From the looks of this its 6 meters in length but the rocket booster looks longer than the scramjet for drone testing for the IL-76 which sort of indicates that the scramjet is smaller than 3 meters. Another comparison is the HAWCs having an external carry while plans are put into place for another stealth aircraft to have internal carry hypersonic air to ground weapons which tells the requirement would be less than 4.6 meters and 1 meter diameter. So with all of this into consideration do you still dismiss janes article that NPO attached it a scramjet? the wave rider with included rocket booster puts it at a 24 foot length and there are scramjet designs that are in 3 meters that can attain the same speeds as the waverider at a smaller size.
 

greenmartian2017

I really should change my personal text
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
46
Reaction score
15
Sferrin your cynicism mystifies me. Your responses indicate that must think that development of maneuvering reentry vehicles (for ICBM warheads and similar) kind of, like, stopped in the early 1970s or something. It hadn't. In the public realm, the information indicates that there was a lot of money thrown at this during the Ronald Reagan administration. If my memory serves, there is even a photograph before an NSC meeting where such a thing was going to be discussed, and the full-scale model had a cloth draped over it for the photo session. That photo is extant somewhere on the interwebs. There were many tests of lifting-body-like RVs that had wide plane changes post-1970. (Under a lot of different project names.) Based on what I recall, a significant proportion of the RVs currently on MM III and SLBMs can do things, other than follow a straight launch arc.

So no, the USA is not behind China or the ex-USSR (under Putin, they are the ex-USSR) in relation to hypersonics.

In response to Gargean, you have no freeking idea how much copying was done. To give you some sort of public clue, I would suggest you get out a copy of this book that I am going to provide the title of, and read it all the way through (beware: very densely written). It's by Christopher Andrew and Vasily Mitrokhin: "The Sword and the Shield." (Published in the early 2000s.) I have recently got access to the (typescript versions--they are indeed in notebook form) copies of Mitrokhin's original notes, and I have been flabbergasted by what I read in there in regards to the Russians' capability at "five finger discounting" technologies from US defense contractors and subcontractors. It was voluminous, it was legion. And the amount of money that was spent to obtain this stuff was astronomical (bribery gets you everywhere, on top of paying for the documents themselves, or physical hardware examples). Overall, this allowed the Soviets to keep a very rough parity during the Cold War--but it was done at great cost to them. The inability to duplicate microminiaturized components on mass scale helped to do them in.

That is not to say that the Russians aren't good at cutting-edge aerodynamics theory (they are excellent), or aren't good at recognizing when something is significant. And yes, the Russians also are very good at looking at purloined technologies, and figuring out how to improve them over the examples that they have in hand.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,322
Reaction score
426

seruriermarshal

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
939
Reaction score
38
So no, the USA is not behind China or the ex-USSR (under Putin, they are the ex-USSR) in relation to hypersonics.
Which US weapons are as far along as Zircon, Avangard, DF-17, etc.
AHW
Yes, but no. The last test was years ago and failed due to a bad Polaris (yes, you read that correctly) booster.
And Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Strike Flight Experiment
 

seruriermarshal

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
939
Reaction score
38
Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Strike Flight Experiment is from AHW :

In 2014, a booster explosion in an Army AHW test prompted the Pentagon to get the Navy involved in the project and modify the boost-glide AHW for submarine missile tubes.
...

Somewhat confusingly, although the AHW is an HGV mated to a ballistic missile, it would be launched from SSGNs and attack submarines, not only SSBNs. Vice Admiral Terry Benedict, director of the Strategic Systems Program, announced a successful first test of this project—the Conventional Prompt Strike Flight Experiment-1 (CPS FE-1)—on 30 October 2017, from a land-based facility in Hawaii.
 

Lc89

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Aug 10, 2019
Messages
40
Reaction score
10
Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Strike Flight Experiment is from AHW :

In 2014, a booster explosion in an Army AHW test prompted the Pentagon to get the Navy involved in the project and modify the boost-glide AHW for submarine missile tubes.
...

Somewhat confusingly, although the AHW is an HGV mated to a ballistic missile, it would be launched from SSGNs and attack submarines, not only SSBNs. Vice Admiral Terry Benedict, director of the Strategic Systems Program, announced a successful first test of this project—the Conventional Prompt Strike Flight Experiment-1 (CPS FE-1)—on 30 October 2017, from a land-based facility in Hawaii.
Here is an article of what happened in those days.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,322
Reaction score
426
Yeah, a failed test half a decade ago of a test vehicle (not something meant to enter service) is a bit less than a bona fied weapons program in the midst of testing / early deployment as the Russian & Chinese programs are. The notion we're ahead of them is laughable.
 

Desertfox

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
131
Reaction score
28
It is all relative. The US hypersonics programs are more advanced technologically, but the Chinese and especially the Russian programs are closer to deployment. Think of it as the 2016 Tesla 3 (US) vs the 2016 Chevy Volt (China/Russia), the Tesla 3 was arguably more advanced and capable, but the Volt was already in production and had longer range.

BTW the AHW derived IR-CPS was successfully tested in October 2017:
 

panzerfeist1

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
55
Reaction score
10
Website
www.quora.com
The French seem pretty decent in ramjet technology and have a scramjet missile in development under their belts so I would try not to exclude them from hypersonic developments as well, that aside I would like to seem some scramjet/ramjet models from the U.S. besides the wave-rider missile to see how much we have improved. I am assuming that scramjet missiles are more difficult targets than HGVs to intercept. HAWC is a good example, but I would love to know the size of such a missile.
 
Top