Author Topic: Hypersonic Strike Vehicle  (Read 12655 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 30,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,132
Re: Hypersonic Strike Vehicle
« Reply #25 on: November 01, 2019, 15:53:35 »
How does one aim one of these weapons at a moving target, like an aircraft carrier?

It's a tough problem.  The missile moves so fast how do you steer it with any accuracy into a target?  Heck how do you have sensors that can pull good information out of a radar return when your sensor is moving at that speed?

I suspect just use nukes and all you need to get is close.  Alternatively you can go the gets there fast, then slows down for terminal/targeting route, or gets there slow and uses hypersonic for the terminal phase to avoid defensive fire.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 305,165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,822
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Hypersonic Strike Vehicle
« Reply #26 on: November 01, 2019, 17:39:56 »
How does one aim one of these weapons at a moving target, like an aircraft carrier?

Offer poor pilots extra danger pay? :)
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 197,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,812
  • Freespeecher
Re: Hypersonic Strike Vehicle
« Reply #27 on: November 01, 2019, 20:50:24 »
Once a target has been localized, weapon moving at hypersonic velocity will cover 1600m per second or greater. The kill chain is to generalize the location of the target, launch the weapon, guide it into the target box and allow the weapon to make terminal adjustments. An aircraft carrier moving at 30 knots will be essentially stationary compared to the incoming hypersonic weapon.

A similar calculus can be made for virtually any sort of target. Indeed the only target which could evade a hypersonic missile would be another hypersonic vehicle or a satellite in Low Earth Orbit
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 254,625
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,002
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Hypersonic Strike Vehicle
« Reply #28 on: November 03, 2019, 17:19:56 »
How does one aim one of these weapons at a moving target, like an aircraft carrier?

30-40 kts is pretty much standing still when your traveling 3,000-5,000 mph.  A CVN travelling at ‘advertised’ speeds travels it own length in the same time that a hypersonic weapon has covered 23nm, so ‘in the right area’ combined with a ‘ terminal tweak’ is Likely to be a pretty solid ouch...

Regards
G2G

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 121,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,458
Re: Hypersonic Strike Vehicle
« Reply #29 on: November 03, 2019, 18:18:52 »
Certainly one would need gps to target a CVN ?

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 168,825
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,866
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Hypersonic Strike Vehicle
« Reply #30 on: November 03, 2019, 18:59:54 »
Certainly one would need gps to target a CVN ?

Why?

Not trolling- I just want to see where you are going with this line of thinking before I respond again.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 121,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,458
Re: Hypersonic Strike Vehicle
« Reply #31 on: November 03, 2019, 20:49:14 »
We are close to OPSEC territory I suspect but the same ability for precision artillery fire I would guess applies to hitting a target at sea. Of course if your warhead is nuclear you dont have to be too accurate.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 168,825
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,866
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Hypersonic Strike Vehicle
« Reply #32 on: November 03, 2019, 21:44:35 »
Ok, got ya.

There are methods of guidance that do not rely on GPS.  I can think of a half dozen ways of getting a hypersonic weapon to it's target that do not rely on a onboard, terminal sensor (which I cannot puzzle out how to make work, given the velocities involved.

You are correct- nuclear weapons mean you only have to be close. However, to use a nuclear weapon against a USN carrier risks escalation that could involve the entire retaliatory weight of the US nuclear arsenal. In other words, you are risking the extinction of the entire human race, if you go that way.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 121,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,458
Re: Hypersonic Strike Vehicle
« Reply #33 on: November 03, 2019, 22:55:30 »
Ok, got ya.

There are methods of guidance that do not rely on GPS.  I can think of a half dozen ways of getting a hypersonic weapon to it's target that do not rely on a onboard, terminal sensor (which I cannot puzzle out how to make work, given the velocities involved.

You are correct- nuclear weapons mean you only have to be close. However, to use a nuclear weapon against a USN carrier risks escalation that could involve the entire retaliatory weight of the US nuclear arsenal. In other words, you are risking the extinction of the entire human race, if you go that way.

Any attack by PRC on US warships will probably escalate based on the nature of the attack. Non nuclear may keep it in that realm. Several years ago the PRC took a USN spy plane claiming it entered Chinese air space, Eventually the incident was deescalated. No one wants a shooting war.

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 30,180
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,132
Re: Hypersonic Strike Vehicle
« Reply #34 on: November 04, 2019, 15:53:17 »
Ok, got ya.

There are methods of guidance that do not rely on GPS.  I can think of a half dozen ways of getting a hypersonic weapon to it's target that do not rely on a onboard, terminal sensor (which I cannot puzzle out how to make work, given the velocities involved.


There are plenty of missiles out there that still use inertial guidance (open source) to get their way to a target.  If they know where they started from a GPS only adds accuracy in the flight path.  This is 70's technology.  However the sensors to calculate how fast you are going (as traditional wind speed measuring devices don't work that well), steering at that speed (vectored thrust?  Surely control surfaces won't work well) and any even minor error in targeting will result in massive accuracy errors.  For example a 1 degree difference at a nautical mile is 35 yards off the target.  This missile travels at multiple miles a second.  You have a targeting error of 1 degree you might be past the target well before you can correct the flight path!  Not saying it cant be done but unique problems to be sure.



Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 121,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,458
Re: Hypersonic Strike Vehicle
« Reply #35 on: November 04, 2019, 17:59:32 »
We had the same principle with the Nike Herc Missile. It was designed to stop waves of Russian bombers with a nuke warhead.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 197,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,812
  • Freespeecher
Re: Hypersonic Strike Vehicle
« Reply #36 on: November 04, 2019, 19:25:30 »
For some types of targets, the hypersonic vehicle might have a fragmenting warhead, releasing a cloud of flechettes. Since Kinetic energy is 1/2 MV^2, even small darts will have a great deal of striking power and energy. For an aircraft carrier, they would "scour" the flight deck, destroy any fittings they strike (like radar antenna) and penetrate into the ship's internal structures. It might actually be more difficult to do damage control with dozens of holes ripped through multiple compartments than a single strike, even if it is a massive one.

This sort of "scouring" attack would also be useful for distributed targets like airfields, industrial facilities, rail yards and so on. Even near misses by unitary warheads would be much like the "Grand Slam" earthquake bombs of WWII, causing immense damage through heaving the ground and undermining structures. How this would work on a ship at sea is problematic, but it certainly worked against the Tirpitz moored in Norway in 1944. Certainly any ships in harbour would be at risk, and sinking supply ships would be almost as useful as sinking the capital ships, especially in the longer term.

But there are indeed many ways to guide a hypersonic missile in the terminal phase of the attack, and it is likely there will be several different methods on board a missile to help penetrate jamming and other defenses. A latticework vane or fin on the missile is the most likely form of guidance, used extensively on Russian missiles and on the SpaceX Falcon boosters as they return from suborbital flight (at close to the sorts of speeds expected of hypersonic weapons).

Click on this image: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b2/Vympel-R-77-maks2009.jpg for an idea of what it might look like

Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Myth
  • *****
  • 305,165
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 15,822
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Hypersonic Strike Vehicle
« Reply #37 on: November 04, 2019, 21:59:50 »
But there are indeed many ways to guide a hypersonic missile in the terminal phase of the attack, and it is likely there will be several different methods on board a missile to help penetrate jamming and other defenses.

And I'm sure that Huawei will have the contract for that :)
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,087
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Hypersonic Strike Vehicle
« Reply #38 on: November 12, 2019, 12:12:57 »
What might Russian, Chinese and US hypersonics be good for, as seen by each country? Excerpts from lengthy piece and conclusion:

Quote
...
Are these weapons and their employment simply an evolution of existing missiles? Or a revolution that threatens to upset the balance of power? The answer still depends on decisions yet to be made. Russia appears closest to fielding hypersonic missiles, as it aspires to deploy the Avangard glide vehicle before the year is out. The United States has ambitious goals for accuracy and precision, but its most viable programs are not expected to reach operational capability until 2022. Meanwhile, China has been characteristically vague on their hypersonic weapons while still letting it be known that they are firmly committed to their development...

A trio of questions needs to be considered: What audience can hypersonic weapons be leveraged against, what tactical utility do they provide, and what strategic objectives can be advanced by using them or threatening to use them? Framing the discussion in this way is useful for delving deeper into why nations are pursuing hypersonic weapons as well as making initial assessments on how they may be operationalized. The propositions below are not exhaustive; they are meant to provoke discussion. They pair a particular application with a particular country, but there is nothing stopping Russia, China, or the United States from taking advantage of any application discussed below...

Hypersonic weapons may lead to a revolution in warfighting if countries produce them at scale. Mass production and deployment of reliable designs would mean that these weapons are no longer a niche capability targeted against a limited number of valuable targets. Rather, inflicting near-instantaneous effects over a multitude of primary and secondary targets could help realize current fears of increased crisis pressures and faster escalation dynamics. In fewer numbers, there may be evolutionary changes at the tactical and operational levels of war without drastically threatening the strategic balance of peer adversaries. In this case, they may herald another iteration of stability-instability dynamics, where states take advantage of high-end warfighting capabilities to enable grey zone aggression. Whether revolution or evolution, hypersonic weapons alone are not the challenge. They will contribute to a 21st-century combined arms dilemma that includes other new technology like cyber activities, advanced anti-submarine warfare, and space operations as well as traditional, but indispensable, maneuver forces like infantry battalions, warships, and air superiority fighters.

Alan Cummings is a Master’s candidate at Tufts’ Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy focusing on nuclear strategy and emerging technology. He served over 10 years on active duty with the U.S. Navy before transitioning to the Navy Reserve, and was recently a research assistant with the Center for Global Security Research at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The views expressed here are his own and in no way represent any institution with which he is affiliated.

(This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory under Contract DE-AC52-07NA27344. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or Lawrence Livermore National Security, LLC. LLNL-JRNL-786217.)

https://warontherocks.com/2019/11/hypersonic-weapons-tactical-uses-and-strategic-goals/

Mark
Ottawa


Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,087
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Hypersonic Strike Vehicle
« Reply #39 on: December 18, 2019, 15:14:34 »
US hypersonics and missile defence vs. them:

1) Hypersonic Hype Hits Testing Hurdle In 2020

Quote
Hypersonic missiles became a household word in 2019. The U.S. taxpayer is now about to find out whether the maneuvering Mach 5+ weapons are worth all the hype—or the cost.

The focus on testing of U.S. hypersonic weapons comes none too soon, as strategic rivals forge ahead. Russian Strategic Missile Forces expect to activate the first battery of Avangard intercontinental ballistic missiles tipped with a nuclear hypersonic glide vehicle (HGV) by the end of December, fulfilling a patient, 15-year development program.

Previewing a likely deployment by the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force next year, China rolled out at least 16 DF-17 missiles with conventional HGVs during the National Day Parade on Oct. 1.

    ARRW and HCSW are set for 2020 flight tests
    “Range Reapers” and “Range Hawks” join test fleet

If everything goes according to the current plan, the first U.S. HGV will enter service in about 2-3 years, starting with the Air Force’s Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon (HCSW) and Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon (ARRW) in 2022, followed by the Army’s Long-Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) and the Navy’s Intermediate-Range Conventional Prompt Strike (IR CPS) a year later. Air-launched scramjet-powered weapons—the Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC) could enter service at some point between the fielding dates for the HCSW and ARRW, but the precise timing has not been released.

In 2020, the focus of the Pentagon’s $10 billion bet on HGVs, scramjets and hypersonic defensive systems will enter a new phase. Over the next four years, the three armed services plan to conduct a total of 40 hypersonic weapon flight tests, with the first two in 2020 [emphasis added].

That is the plan anyway. It has been over two years since the Pentagon completed the last flight test of a hypersonic weapon—a Navy evaluation of the forerunner of the IR CPS and LRHW configuration for the HGV and two-stage missile stack. Despite the recent international interest, designing a successful maneuvering hypersonic weapon remains one of the most challenging assignments for aerodynamics and propulsion engineers.

Not surprisingly, U.S. test schedules have continued to slip. The original schedule for DARPA’s Tactical Boost Glide (TBG) program called for a first flight test by the end of June 2019, but unspecified technical difficulties caused a delay to the end of the year.

The Pentagon’s overlapping hypersonic programs are also prone to creating confusion. TBG shares a similar profile to ARRW. In fact, the TBG is itself testing two HGVs: one designed by Lockheed Martin, the other by Raytheon. The follow-on ARRW prototyping program also is split between Lockheed and Raytheon HGVs, although the only hypersonic weapon with an official designation so far—AGM-183A—belongs to the Lockheed version of ARRW.

Whether launched from air, ground or sea, the next round of testing is about to begin. If the first TBG flight test is completed by the end of 2019, the first AGM-183A ARRW and HCSW tests should occur by the end of 2020. Then the Pentagon plans to ramp up flight testing to unprecedented levels, even surpassing Russia and China.

“The hypersonics flight-test rhythm has increased to two events per year starting in fiscal 2020 and will continue to accelerate up to 20 events a year,” the Army said in a Nov. 27 acquisition notice...https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/hypersonic-hype-hits-testing-hurdle-2020

2) MDA Kickstarts New Way To Kill Hypersonic Missiles

Quote
It looks like the military is taking a regional approach to hypersonic missile defense, while it continues to pursue a space sensor layer for homeland defense.

The Missile Defense Agency held a closed-door meeting today at its Alabama headquarters with defense industry reps to talk through ideas for knocking hard-to-kill hypersonic missiles out of the sky.

The classified meeting will begin laying out the basics for what’s being called the Hypersonic Defense Regional Glide Phase Weapon System. While details of the program were scarce, its name may provide some clues.

It’s clear “they’re going after the regional as opposed to the homeland mission,” Tom Karako, director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said. The lack of a space-based sensor layer likely makes this the more achievable play in the short-term, he said, since these weapons can be forward deployed on ships or overseas bases to target shorter-range weapons [empasis added].

The new effort adds to the panoply of hypersonic defense programs the Pentagon is scrambling to get off the ground as quickly as possible in the face of real advances by China and Russia to field such weapons.

Short or long-range, hypersonic weapons, which travel at Mach 5 or above pose a tough challenge for the Pentagon as it tries to come up with ways to defeat them.

“If war breaks out tomorrow, we’re probably not going to kill hypersonic boost glide missiles,” the Pentagon’s research and development chief, Mike Griffin, said earlier this year.

“We don’t have any defense that could deny the employment of such a weapon against us,” Gen. John Hyten, then commander of the Pentagon’s Strategic Command, told the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, 2018. Hyten has since been sworn in as the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, putting him in a position to begin to push for just such programs.

As with the newest program, the Pentagon’s efforts have been clouded in secrecy as the military figures out a way to talk about the problem, and what they’re doing about it. That makes it hard to figure out just how far away the US is from fielding either offensive or defensive weapons [emphasis added]...
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/12/mda-kickstarts-new-way-to-kill-hypersonic-missiles/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,087
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Hypersonic Strike Vehicle
« Reply #40 on: December 18, 2019, 19:46:42 »
On the other hand--start and end:

Hypersonic missiles: Three questions every reader should ask

Interest in hypersonic weapons is taking off. The United States has for decades supported a modest research effort in such weapons, but now, spurred along by Russia and China, it’s ramping up efforts. Russian President Vladimir Putin used his 2018 address to the nation to announce the development of a hypersonic glider that he claimed would be able to get through all US defenses, and that weapon assumed combat duty this month. Meanwhile, even a cursory scan of the academic research literature shows a healthy presence in this field at Chinese universities, and the hypersonic DF-17 missile was all the rage at that country’s 70th anniversary parade in October. Michael Griffin, head of the Pentagon’s research and engineering, has stated that hypersonic weapons, and defense against them, were the military’s highest technical priorities.

Interest from the press has followed. Scan Google News for the word “hypersonic,” and three times as many hits come up in the last two years as in the previous two-year period. Several reports have appeared in the New York Times, Washington Post, Economist, and other leading general-interest publications, plus many more examples in the trade press.

One thing that jumps out from almost all of these pieces is a glaring lack of normal journalistic skepticism (with a few admirable exceptions). Indeed, some major pieces are downright fawning. The authors readily accept advocates’ claims that hypersonic weapons will move at blinding speeds, have extended range, be easily maneuverable, and strike targets with high precision without considering the engineering challenges or inherent physical limitations that will make this combination of capabilities difficult—if not impossible.

Why do reports on hypersonic weapons generally range from kid-glove treatment to cheer-leading? There are a few different things going on here. Hypersonic vehicles are really impressive and it is easy to be dazzled by their performance (or, more precisely, the performance that is claimed for them). After all, who doesn’t love Formula 1 racecars, speedboats, and anything else that moves fast? Aircraft that can fly through the air with such speed that bits of it start to glow red have an intrinsic appeal.

Analysts should, of course, see past the dazzle. But that reveals another great challenge for reporters covering this topic: the dearth of outside expertise or contrary views. Virtually anyone in the United States who has a solid technical understanding of hypersonic aerodynamics is working for the Defense Department, one of the national laboratories, a contractor working for Defense, or is a university researcher supported at least in part by Defense Department grants.

To be clear, this does not mean that the people doing this work and claiming great virtues for hypersonic vehicles are shills for something they know is nonsense. Quite the opposite. Why would anyone devote their life to hypersonic research if they did not think the work was more than simply intriguing but also important? And those with hands-on experience tend to be very forthcoming about the technical challenges. These are honest believers, but the funding realities tends to create enthusiasts rather than skeptics. There are a mere handful of people in the United States who have some scientific and technical understanding of hypersonic vehicles who are not working directly or indirectly for the military—and that means a very limited set of contrary views.

An early lack of naysayers almost always occurs when some new idea or proposed system first appears. A new idea gets pushed forward by enthusiasts and advocates and it takes a while for the analytical community to scratch its collective head and come back with: “Wait a second…”

...it’s clear that much of the motivation for the US hypersonic weapons program is mainly a reflexive response to Russian and Chinese developments: If they do it, then we should too. US government officials have been quite explicit that the American effort is intended, in part, to avoid falling behind in this “race” with Russia and China. Yet, the strategic challenges of each country are radically different. Russian leaders have said explicitly that their hypersonic efforts are in response to US missile defenses and US abrogation of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and they might be telling the truth. Of the three countries, the United States is, indeed, working hardest on ballistic missile defenses. When looking out at the threats in the world, Russia and China have very different views than does the United States. There is no reason for the United States to go on autopilot and mirror-image their moves with regard to hypersonic weapons.

Perhaps this whole idea will collapse under its own weight, but not before the United States has spent several billion dollars. That’s why the analytical community shouldn’t wait. It’s bad to be cynical but good to be skeptical. Those who write about this new weapon should stop and take a breath—and ask hard, honest questions.
https://thebulletin.org/2019/12/hypersonic-missiles-three-questions-every-reader-should-ask/#

But might not hypersonics, esp. stealthy cruise missiles, be just the ticket for decapitation of most of an enemy's key C4ISR facilities? Amongst other things.

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,087
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Hypersonic Strike Vehicle
« Reply #41 on: February 17, 2020, 12:57:32 »
Congressional Research Service on Prompt Global Strike, hypersonics and nuclear weapons:

Quote
Report to Congress on Conventional Prompt Global Strike and Long-Range Ballistic Missiles

From the report

Members of Congress and Pentagon officials have placed a growing emphasis on U.S. programs to develop hypersonic weapons as a part of an effort to acquire the capability for the United States to launch attacks against targets around the world in under an hour. Conventional prompt global strike (CPGS) weapons may bolster U.S. efforts to deter and defeat adversaries by allowing the United States to attack high-value targets or “fleeting targets” at the start of or during a conflict. Congress has generally supported the PGS mission, but restricted funding for several years. Recently, efforts to develop a long-range prompt strike capability, along with other efforts to develop extremely fast hypersonic weapons, have garnered increased support.

CPGS weapons would not substitute for nuclear weapons, but would supplement U.S. conventional capabilities. Officials have argued that the long-range systems would provide a “niche” capability, with a small number of weapons directed against select, critical targets. Some analysts, however, have raised concerns about the possibility that U.S. adversaries might misinterpret the launch of a missile with conventional warheads and conclude that the missiles carry nuclear weapons. The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) is considering a number of systems that might provide the United States with long-range strike capabilities.

The Air Force and Navy have both pursued programs that would lead to the deployment of conventional warheads on their long-range ballistic missiles. During the 2000s, the Air Force and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) sought to develop a hypersonic glide delivery vehicle that could deploy on a modified Peacekeeper land-based ballistic missile, but test failures led to the suspension of this program; research continues into a vehicle that might be deployed on air-delivered or shorter-range systems. In the mid-2000s, the Navy sought to deploy conventional warheads on a small number of Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles, but Congress rejected the requested funding for this program. Since then, the Pentagon has continued to develop a hypersonic glide vehicle, now known as the Alternate Reentry System, which could be deployed on long-range missiles. At present, it seems likely that this vehicle could be deployed on intermediate-range missiles on Navy submarines, for what is now known as the Prompt Strike Mission. Congress may review other weapons options for the deployment of hypersonic weapons, including bombers, cruise missiles, and possibly scramjets or other advanced technologies.

The Pentagon’s FY2021 budget request continues to show significant increases in funding for the Navy’s Conventional Prompt Strike (CPS) program. In FY2019 this program, which was funded through a DOD-wide account, received $278 million. The Navy received $512 million for this program in FY2020 and requested $1.008 billion for FY2021. The budget request shows continuing increases in funding over the next five years, with $5.3 billion allocated to the program between FY2021 through FY2025. This shows the growing priority placed on the program in the Pentagon and the growing interest in Congress in moving the program forward toward deployment.

When Congress reviews the budget requests for prompt global strike and other hypersonic weapons programs, it may question DOD’s rationale for the mission, reviewing whether the United States might have to attack targets promptly at the start of or during a conflict, when it could not rely on forward-based land or naval forces. It might also review whether this capability would reduce U.S. reliance on nuclear weapons or whether, as some critics have asserted, it might upset stability and possibly increase the risk of a nuclear response to a U.S. attack. At the same time, Members of Congress and officials in the Pentagon have both noted that Russia and China are pursuing hypersonic weapons, leading many to question whether the United States needs to accelerate its efforts in response, or whether an acceleration of U.S. efforts might contribute to an arms race and crisis instability...
https://news.usni.org/2020/02/17/report-to-congress-on-conventional-prompt-global-strike-and-long-range-ballistic-missiles-2

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,087
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Hypersonic Strike Vehicle
« Reply #42 on: February 18, 2020, 19:07:58 »
More on US Navy's plans, wants conventionally-armed hypersonics on its SSNs–but how will the target know they're not nuclear armed?

Quote
Navy Confirms Global Strike Hypersonic Weapon Will First Deploy on Virginia Attack Subs

The Navy intends to deploy its conventional prompt strike hypersonic weapon on Virginia-class attack submarines, after previous discussions of putting the weapon on the larger Ohio-class guided-missile submarine (SSGN), according to budget request documents…

On the Conventional Prompt Strike, the Navy wants to invest $1 billion for research and development.

“The CPS program develops warfighting capability to enable precise and timely strike capability in contested environments across surface and sub-surface platforms,” reads the budget documents.
“The Navy’s CPS program will design a missile comprised of a Common Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB) and a 34.5 inch two-stage booster. The program is pursuing an [initial operational capability] of FY 2028 in which the missile will be fielded on a Virginia class submarine with Virginia Payload Module.”..

The conventional prompt global strike capability would allow the U.S. to hit any target on the planet with precision-guided weapons in less than an hour. Similar to nuclear weapons, part of that prompt strike capability would rely on multiple ways to launch the missiles from ships, submarines or ground launchers around the globe…
https://news.usni.org/2020/02/18/navy-confirms-global-strike-hypersonic-weapon-will-first-deploy-on-virginia-attack-subs

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,087
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Hypersonic Strike Vehicle
« Reply #43 on: March 03, 2020, 05:56:57 »
Post:

Quote
Pentagon Going Hyper over Hypersonics
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/03/03/pentagon-going-hyper-over-hypersonics/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,087
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Hypersonic Strike Vehicle
« Reply #44 on: March 06, 2020, 15:40:22 »
Post based on reports by Congressional Research Service, International Institute of Strategic Studies--big NORAD implications as alluded to by CDS Gen. Vance in speech to CDAI conference (https://cdainstitute.ca/jonathan-vance-speaks-at-2020-ottawa-conference/):

Quote
Hypersonics? What Are They Good For? What About Arms Control?
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/03/06/hypersonics-what-are-they-good-for-what-about-arms-control/


Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,087
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Hypersonic Strike Vehicle
« Reply #45 on: March 13, 2020, 15:40:33 »
Now Japan:

Quote
Japan unveils its hypersonic weapons plans



Japan has outlined its research and development road map for its homegrown, standoff hypersonic weapons, confirming that it is seeking an incremental growth in capability and providing more details about the kinds of threats it is targeting with this new class of weapon.

In a Japanese-language document published on the Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Agency website, the government said two classes of standoff hypersonic systems will be deployed — the Hypersonic Cruise Missile (HCM) and the Hyper Velocity Gliding Projectile (HVGP).

The former will be powered by a scramjet engine and appears similar to a typical missile, albeit one that cruises at a much higher speed while capable of traveling at long ranges.

The HVGP, on the other hand, will feature a solid-fuel rocket engine that will boost its warhead payload to a high altitude before separation, where it will then glide to its target using its altitude to maintain high velocity until impact.

The agency also provided more details regarding warhead payloads, with different warheads planned for both seaborne and land targets. The former will be an armor-piercing warhead designed specifically for penetrating “the deck of the [aircraft] carrier,” while a land-attack version will utilize a high-density, explosively formed projectile, or EFP, for area suppression.

Area suppression effects for the latter will be achieved via the use of multiple EFPs, which are more commonly known as a shaped charge. An EFP is made up of a concave metal hemispherical or cone-shaped liner backed by a high explosive, all in a steel or aluminum casing. When the high explosive is detonated, the metal liner is compressed and squeezed forward, forming a jet whose tip may travel as fast as 6 miles per second.

Japan’s road map also revealed the country is taking an incremental approach with regard to designing the shapes of warheads and developing solid-fuel engine technology, with plans to field early versions of both in the 2024 to 2028 time frame. They are expected to enter service in the early 2030s [emphasis added]...
https://www.defensenews.com/industry/techwatch/2020/03/13/japan-unveils-its-hypersonic-weapons-plans/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,087
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Hypersonic Strike Vehicle
« Reply #46 on: April 08, 2020, 16:21:46 »
Dig this loadout (lots of further links at original):

Quote
Air Force Wants To Use External Pylons To Arm The B-1B Bomber With 31 Hypersonic Missiles
The configuration would revolutionize the B-1's standoff strike capability and it would keep the jet relevant as it enters the twilight of its career.

A top U.S. Air Force officer has detailed plans to add the AGM-183A Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon, as well as the Hypersonic Air-Breathing Weapon Concept, both of which are hypersonic missiles, to the B-1B Bone bomber's arsenal. He also curiously talked about the potential for these aircraft to carry a conventionally-armed version of the future Long Range Stand Off stealthy cruise missile, something Congress effectively canceled last year.

U.S. Air Force General Timothy Ray, head of Air Force Global Strike Command, which oversees all of America's bomber fleets, gave an update on future B-1B loadouts in a recent interview with Air Force Magazine. Last year, the service highlighted work to expand the bomber's ability to carry hypersonic weapons and other new stores, both internally and externally. This all also comes amid already controversial plans to retire 17 of its 60 remaining Bones in the 2021 Fiscal Year and has severely scaled back the activities of the fleet as a whole, prohibiting crews from flying at low altitudes and restricting total annual flight hours, which you can read about more in this past War Zone exclusive.

"My goal would be to bring on at least a squadron’s worth of airplanes modified with external pylons on the B-1, to carry the ARRW [Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon] hypersonic cruise missile," General Ray told Air Force Magazine. He added that the service had contemplated several options for integrating the AGM-183A onto the bombers, "but we believe the easiest, fastest, and probably most effective in the short term will be to go with the external pylons."

At present, B-1 squadron typically has 18 aircraft, according to Air Force Magazine. Ray appears to have misspoken in describing ARRW, which is pronounced "arrow," as a "cruise missile." The AGM-183A has an unpowered hypersonic boost-glide vehicle as its warhead. The weapon's rocket booster lofts that vehicle to an appropriate speed and altitude, after which it then glides down along a level trajectory within the Earth's atmosphere to its target. The weapon's high speed and unpredictable flight path make it difficult for opponents to detect and track, which makes it hard to move critical assets out of the target area, if at all possible, or otherwise take shelter before the strike hits, or even attempt an intercept...

The Air Force is also looking at the B-1B as a potential platform to carry the Hypersonic Air-Breathing Weapon Concept, or HAWC. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has been leading the development of this powered hypersonic cruise missile, though the Air Force Research Laboratory has also been involved. Air Force Magazine says that the Bones, using external pylons and common rotary launchers in their internal bomb bays, could potentially carry a mix of up to 31 hypersonic missiles in total [emphasis added].

Interestingly, General Ray also raised the possibility of adding a conventionally-armed variant of the Long Range Stand Off (LRSO) stealthy cruise missile, which is presently in development, to the B-1B's arsenal in the future. “Right now, we’re not asking for that, based on the prioritization of the nuclear piece, … but there’s things that could change in the future [emphasis added],” he told Air Force Magazine.

This is curious because Congress specifically eliminated its requirement for a conventional version of the LRSO in the annual defense policy bill, or National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), for the 2020 Fiscal Year, which President Donald Trump signed into law in December 2019. The law's language did not expressly prohibit the Air Force from pursuing this capability on its own, but removed an immediate legal demand for the service to do so.

Ray said that there could be a demand for this weapon based on a desire for "an even longer-ranged cruise missile with conventional capability" and because the AGM-86 series is "aging out on us." However, the Air Force has already retired the conventional AGM-86C/D variants and has initiated the development of an "extreme range" variant of the Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile cruise missile, also known as the AGM-158D or JASSM-XR.

The exact range capability the Air Force is seeking from JASSM-XR is unknown, but it is said to be in excess of 1,000 miles, which would already give it a substantially greater range than the AGM-86C/D [emphasis added]. In addition, the service is hoping to have this missile, which will leverage existing work on the JASSM, including the AGM-158B JASSM-Extended Range (JASSM-ER) version, out of development by 2023, with the first examples hopefully entering service relatively soon thereafter. The nuclear-armed LSRO is not supposed to reach initial operational capability until at least 2030...
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32940/air-force-wants-to-use-external-pylons-on-b-1b-bomber-to-arm-it-with-31-hypersonic-missiles
 

Mark
Ottawa
 



Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,087
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Hypersonic Strike Vehicle
« Reply #47 on: April 15, 2020, 14:56:35 »
Post based on reports by Congressional Research Service, International Institute of Strategic Studies--big NORAD implications as alluded to by CDS Gen. Vance in speech to CDAI conference (https://cdainstitute.ca/jonathan-vance-speaks-at-2020-ottawa-conference/):

Mark
Ottawa

Hypersonics testing ramping up (further links at original):

Quote
Hypersonics: 5 More Army-Navy Flight Tests By 2023
The first four flight tests – one a failure -- took nine years. The next five will take less than three years.

“We need to accelerate the pace of testing,” the Army’s three-star director of hypersonics says. “Fourth quarter FY23 is when the Army builds [this weapon]; that time is coming really fast. [And] we’re lucky, because when we woke up on the 27th of December and the Russians publicly declared that they had fielded a similar capability, that really put us on a path to accelerate.”

Last year, Lt. Gen. Neil Thurgood took over the Army’s reorganized and renamed Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office (RCCTO), which is now responsible for both offensive hypersonic missiles and missile defense lasers. What kind of acceleration is he talking about?

The weapon that evolved into the Common Hypersonic Glide Body – so-called because it will go on both Army land-launched missiles and Navy submarine-launched ones – has had just four flight tests in nine years. The first, successful flight was in 2011. It took three years to get to the second test, in 2014, which produced no useful data because the booster rocket failed and the glide body never detached. The second successful test took another three years, to 2017; the third test, last month, another three years.

But looking forward, “our next flight test will be in third quarter ’21. Then we have additional flight tests in first quarter ’22,” Thurgood told me. “We have five more flight tests – at least five more flight tests – before we build in fourth quarter ’23.”

Tests will not only come closer together. They’ll also become more demanding.

“We are working to make it more accurate and survive in a more stressful environment,” said Thurgood’s deputy for hypersonics, Robert Strider. “With every test that we do, we’re increasing the test envelope to make sure that it will work as designed [read on]...”
https://breakingdefense.com/2020/04/hypersonics-5-more-army-navy-flight-tests-by-2023/


Mark
Ottawa


Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 121,755
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,458
Re: Hypersonic Strike Vehicle
« Reply #48 on: April 15, 2020, 15:00:28 »
Good thing they aren't making PPE.  :(

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 85,675
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,087
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Hypersonic Strike Vehicle
« Reply #49 on: April 25, 2020, 13:38:49 »
Start of a post:

Quote
Pentagon Going Hyper over Hypersonics, Part 2

Further to this post (note others linked to at end),

Quote
Hypersonics? What Are They Good For? What About Arms Control?

the Pentagon does seem to be going into hyperdrive over this new class of missilery, hang any arms control implications (note general preference for air-breathers)–at Breaking Defense:

Hypersonics: DoD Wants ‘Hundreds of Weapons’ ASAP
“We want to deliver hypersonics at scale,” said R&D director Mark Lewis, from air-breathing cruise missiles to rocket-boosted gliders that fly through space.

The Pentagon has created a “war room” to ramp up production of hypersonic weapons from a handful of prototypes over the last decade to “hundreds of weapons” in the near future...
https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2020/04/25/pentagon-going-hyper-over-hypersonics-part-2/


Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.