Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2014, 21:57
by spazsinbad
Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons
03 Jun 2014 Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.

"...“There’s nothing magic about Mach 5,” Brink himself told me. “Why not four or seven? We are all looking at all of those,” he said. The Air Force is studying high-speed turbines going Mach 2.5, ramjets going Mach 3 to 4, and boost-glide systems reaching Mach 8 to 10, as well as hypersonic “scramjets” like the X-51.

“There are other capabilities that could get us faster missiles sooner [than hypersonics],” Laird told me. “I think we need to look at missiles across the board.” After committing hundreds of billions to the F-22 and F-35, often called fifth generation jet fighters, he said, “we’re flying fifth generation aircraft with third and fourth generation weapons.” Hypersonics could be one way for the weapons to catch up to the planes that carry them.

“It’s not the Manhattan Project,” Laird said. “I would make a moderate, steady investment” — preferably in partnership with the Australians, who have a hypersonics project of their own — “and see how the technology matures.”

Source: http://breakingdefense.com/2014/06/spee ... c-weapons/

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2014, 23:12
by flighthawk128
Hmm, a good idea.
Just one problem, there are critics of the AMRAAMs (and other current missiles) due to unreliability (rockets won't fire, they miss, it's a dud, it explodes when it launches).
If we go ahead and try to work on an even MORE advanced missile going at high Mach speeds, it'll meet some opposition saying we can't even get a relatively simple missile to work properly most of the time.
But eventually this will be the weapons we front (not in the foreseeable future though). And stealth aircraft (fighters and bombers) will be rendered obsolete and useless (hypersonic standoff weapons provided we can make them with enough range).
But then this will all route back into massive amounts of ICBMs, no? :mrgreen:

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2014, 23:15
by spazsinbad
Some evidence for your faulty missile claims would be nice.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2014, 01:33
by flighthawk128
For it missing, a little bit of logic and testing: (this is the biggest factor, and applies to hypersonic weapons)

Due to AMRAAM's operating parameters, the circumstances upon which it is fired determine how likely the kill will be.
The kill probability is determined by several factors, including aspect (head-on interception, side-on or tail-chase), altitude, the speed of the missile and the target, and how hard the target can turn. Typically, if the missile has sufficient energy during the terminal phase, which comes from being launched at close range to the target from an aircraft with an altitude and speed advantage, it will have a good chance of success. This chance drops as the missile is fired at longer ranges as it runs out of overtake speed at long ranges, and if the target can force the missile to turn it might bleed off enough speed that it can no longer chase the target.

For rockets not firing: (it is kind of fixed now)
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... es-379611/

Duds are always a concern in any air force. By this, I mean it may not be the rocket's fault per se, it could be a mounting problem or a problematic link-up. Shouldn't happen, and not broadcasted in the news (usually), but it does happen.

As for missiles exploding on wingtips, a bit of levity and never heard of that happening before, but if you have, share links please. :D

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2014, 01:55
by lookieloo
spazsinbad wrote:Some evidence for your faulty missile claims would be nice.
10 minutes ago, the kid thought Norway was buying the F-35B and talked about all them Harriers Germany used to operate. Oh man... this could get interesting.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2014, 02:15
by weasel1962
One more point, not sure but I suspect high hypersonic missiles may have the potential to defeat laser defences as lasers will need time to disable the missile. Considering the amount of $ spent on developing laser weaponry, that's possibly a cheap counter due to the maturity of technology. Having said that, it won't defeat a hard-kill + laser defence combo but it'd certainly complicate defences esp the amount of time needed for defensive OODA.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2014, 02:39
by popcorn
I like the rail gun firing shrapnel rounds that blast hundred of tungsten rods.. a hypersonic shotgun blast in effect. One not enough? Shoot of several more, they're that affordable. That will disintegrate any incoming the threat. NAVY is testing one at sea a couple of years hence. Should make mince meat out of AShBm as well.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2014, 02:41
by spazsinbad
God Bless the USN eh 'popcorn'. :mrgreen:

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2014, 04:22
by count_to_10
popcorn wrote:I like the rail gun firing shrapnel rounds that blast hundred of tungsten rods.. a hypersonic shotgun blast in effect. One not enough? Shoot of several more, they're that affordable. That will disintegrate any incoming the threat. NAVY is testing one at sea a couple of years hence. Should make mince meat out of AShBm as well.

Small problem: the projectile is less than 10 kg, and the rep rate on that isn't very impressive.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2014, 04:31
by weasel1962
count_to_10 wrote:
popcorn wrote:I like the rail gun firing shrapnel rounds that blast hundred of tungsten rods.. a hypersonic shotgun blast in effect. One not enough? Shoot of several more, they're that affordable. That will disintegrate any incoming the threat. NAVY is testing one at sea a couple of years hence. Should make mince meat out of AShBm as well.

Small problem: the projectile is less than 10 kg, and the rep rate on that isn't very impressive.


Velocity itself enhances the energy yield. Lot of pockmarked holes in the underwater hull is still going to sink a ship eventually if the water volume can't be contained.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2014, 05:20
by popcorn
count_to_10 wrote:
popcorn wrote:I like the rail gun firing shrapnel rounds that blast hundred of tungsten rods.. a hypersonic shotgun blast in effect. One not enough? Shoot of several more, they're that affordable. That will disintegrate any incoming the threat. NAVY is testing one at sea a couple of years hence. Should make mince meat out of AShBm as well.

Small problem: the projectile is less than 10 kg, and the rep rate on that isn't very impressive.

Do you have a source documenting the specs for the weaponized rail gun system and ammo? Note what they will put out to sea initially is a,prototype with a 100nmi range if memory serves. The Navy hopes,to,weaponize a rail gun with twice that range. Please,share rate-of-fire info for,a,rail gun but also keep in mind there will be more than one rail gun in a CSG.
Somebody can do the physics but anything coming i at hypersonic,speed,i.e Mach 5 and above impacting with another object, even if only the size of a metal ball bearing at a similar,speed... not good for the i,coming package. Now multiply that by thousands of hypersonic marbles forming a gauntlet ... ouch.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2014, 05:33
by weasel1962
popcorn wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:
popcorn wrote:I like the rail gun firing shrapnel rounds that blast hundred of tungsten rods.. a hypersonic shotgun blast in effect. One not enough? Shoot of several more, they're that affordable. That will disintegrate any incoming the threat. NAVY is testing one at sea a couple of years hence. Should make mince meat out of AShBm as well.

Small problem: the projectile is less than 10 kg, and the rep rate on that isn't very impressive.

Do you have a source documenting the specs for the weaponized rail gun system and ammo? Note what they will put out to sea initially is a,prototype with a 100nmi range if memory serves. The Navy hopes,to,weaponize a rail gun with twice that range. Please,share rate-of-fire info for,a,rail gun but also keep in mind there will be more than one rail gun in a CSG.
Somebody can do the physics but anything coming i at hypersonic,speed,i.e Mach 5 and above impacting with another object, even if only the size of a metal ball bearing at a similar,speed... not good for the i,coming package. Now multiply that by thousands of hypersonic marbles forming a gauntlet ... ouch.


There is a bore life (as well as 20kg packages).
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a528667.pdf

Although meant for army rail gun (studying penetration of tank armor), this study gives a nice formula to calculate penetration based on mass, RHA, velocity etc.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a443240.pdf

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2014, 05:36
by popcorn
spazsinbad wrote:God Bless the USN eh 'popcorn'. :mrgreen:

I'm just waiting for ARMY to jump on the band wagon... immediate application for air and missile defense which are in their mandate.. but hey, let NAVY spend the money perfecting their hi-tech pumpkin chunker.. :D

Add edit: apologies to Army,,apparently they do have a rail gun initiative though not as high-profile as Navy's.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2014, 05:55
by weasel1962
For what Popcorn has mentioned, its the cargo round that carries the multiple tungsten "bullets", see 5th slide from end.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007armaments/Fair.pdf

This appeared to be an older spec (110 lbs with unitary payload).

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2004fuze/pomeroy.pdf

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2014, 05:56
by spazsinbad
"hi-tech pumpkin chunker" way to go.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2014, 15:21
by uclass
With great speed comes naff range.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2014, 21:50
by popcorn
Back on topic, the focus at the AFRL is pushing key tech that will go into the HSSW.

www.armed-services.senate.gov/download/ ... 4-08-14pdf

The near term strike effort is the High Speed Strike Weapon (HSSW) program. This effort will mature cruise missile technology to address many of those items necessary to realize a missile in the hypersonic speed regime including: modeling and simulation; ramjet/scramjet propulsion; high temperature materials; guidance, navigation, and control; seekers and their required apertures; warhead and subsystems; thermal protection and management; manufacturing technology; and compact energetic booster technologies. The Air Force conducts research and development in all aspects of hypersonic technologies in partnership with NASA, DARPA, and industry/academic sectors. The HSSW program will include two parallel integrated technology demonstration efforts to leverage DARPA’s recent experience in hypersonic technologies that are relevant to reduce risk in key areas. One of the demonstrations will be a tactically-relevant demonstration of an air breathing missile technology that is compatible with Air Force 5th generation platforms including geometric and weight limits for internal B-2 Spirit bomber carriage and external F-35 Lightening II fighter carriage. This demonstration will build on the X-51 success and will include a tactically compliant engine start capability and launch from a relevant altitude.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2014, 23:59
by count_to_10
weasel1962 wrote:
popcorn wrote:Do you have a source documenting the specs for the weaponized rail gun system and ammo? Note what they will put out to sea initially is a,prototype with a 100nmi range if memory serves. The Navy hopes,to,weaponize a rail gun with twice that range. Please,share rate-of-fire info for,a,rail gun but also keep in mind there will be more than one rail gun in a CSG.
Somebody can do the physics but anything coming i at hypersonic,speed,i.e Mach 5 and above impacting with another object, even if only the size of a metal ball bearing at a similar,speed... not good for the i,coming package. Now multiply that by thousands of hypersonic marbles forming a gauntlet ... ouch.


There is a bore life (as well as 20kg packages).
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a528667.pdf

Although meant for army rail gun (studying penetration of tank armor), this study gives a nice formula to calculate penetration based on mass, RHA, velocity etc.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a443240.pdf

Note that these are the things that they are going to try to accomplish in the program, not things they are sure can be done, nor something that has been demonstrated. I know people closer to the effort that are fairly certain that rail guns are not going to be deployed any time soon.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2014, 00:28
by spazsinbad
This is why the interstitialbrickthrowinginternet is so great: "... I know people closer to the effort that are fairly certain that rail guns are not going to be deployed any time soon." BRICK is an old NAVY name for a SHELL.
Navy to Deploy Electromagnetic Railgun Aboard JHSV
Story Number: NNS140407-03 Release Date: 07 Apr 2014
From Naval Sea Systems Command Office of Corporate Communication


"WASHINGTON (NNS) -- The U.S. Navy plans to install and test a prototype electromagnetic railgun aboard a joint high speed vessel in fiscal year 2016, the service announced today.

This test will mark the first time an electromagnetic railgun (EM railgun) has been demonstrated at sea, symbolizing a significant advance in naval combat.

EM railgun technology uses an electromagnetic force - known as the Lorenz Force - to rapidly accelerate and launch a projectile between two conductive rails. This guided projectile is launched at such high velocities that it can achieve greater ranges than conventional guns. It maintains enough kinetic energy that it doesn't require any kind of high explosive payload when it reaches its target.

High-energy EM railguns are expected to be lethal and effective against multiple threats, including enemy warships, small boats, aircraft, missiles and land-based targets.

"The electromagnetic railgun represents an incredible new offensive capability for the U.S. Navy," said Rear Adm. Bryant Fuller, the Navy's chief engineer. "This capability will allow us to effectively counter a wide-range of threats at a relatively low cost, while keeping our ships and sailors safer by removing the need to carry as many high-explosive weapons."

EM railgun technology will complement current kinetic weapons currently onboard surface combatants and offer a few specific advantages. Against specific threats, the cost per engagement is orders of magnitude less expensive than comparable missile engagements. The projectile itself is being designed to be common with some current powder guns, enabling the conservation of expensive missiles for use against more complex threats.

"Energetic weapons, such as EM railguns, are the future of naval combat," said Rear Adm. Matt Klunder, the chief of naval research. "The U.S. Navy is at the forefront of this game-changing technology."

This demonstration is the latest in a series of technical maturation efforts designed to provide an operational railgun to the fleet. Since 2005, the Navy and its partners in industry and academia have been testing railgun technology at the Naval Surface Warfare Center in Dahlgren, Va., and the Naval Research Lab where the service has a number of prototype systems.

The final operational system will be capable of launching guided, multi-mission projectiles to a range of 110 nautical miles against a wide range of threats. The series of tests are designed to capture lessons for incorporation into a future tactical design and will allow the Navy to best understand needed ship modifications before fully integrating the technology.

The Navy is using JHSV as a vessel of opportunity because of its available cargo and topside space and schedule flexibility. Because JHSVs are non-combatants, there is no plan to permanently install a railgun on any ship of the class. A final decision has not been made on which ship classes will receive a fully operational railgun."

PHOTO: "120621-N-PO203-041 DAHLGREN, Va. (June 21, 2012) The second of two Office of Naval Research (ONR) Electromagnetic (EM) Railgun industry prototype launchers is being evaluated at the Naval Surface Warfare Center, Dahlgren Division. Both General Atomics and BAE Systems have designed next generation prototype EM Railguns capable of increased firing rates. The EM Railgun is a long-range weapon that launches projectiles using electricity instead of chemical propellants and is under development by the Department of the Navy for use aboard ships. (U.S. Navy photo by John F. Williams/Released)"
http://www.navy.mil/management/photodb/ ... 03-041.jpg

Source: http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=80055



Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2014, 01:46
by count_to_10
Well, Spaz, the way I've heard it, the GA effort isn't going to be sufficient, so they are going to give BAE a try before throwing in the towel. I'd really like it if the rail gun worked out, but it doesn't look like its in the cards.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2014, 04:40
by popcorn
count_to_10 wrote:Well, Spaz, the way I've heard it, the GA effort isn't going to be sufficient, so they are going to give BAE a try before throwing in the towel. I'd really like it if the rail gun worked out, but it doesn't look like its in the cards.

Seeing is believing and come,2016 and they do manage to test a prototype rail gun aboard a ship then I count that as major progress,,a significant step up from,what they've achieved in a lab environment. It would help your story if the naysayers could go on record as to their specific concerns and reveal their identities and credentials,for the record,so,we,may also determine how credible they are,,all in the interest of having a meaningful discussion. Otherwise it's really in the realm,of unsubstantiated,hearsay really.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2014, 13:27
by sferrin
count_to_10 wrote:Well, Spaz, the way I've heard it, the GA effort isn't going to be sufficient, so they are going to give BAE a try before throwing in the towel. I'd really like it if the rail gun worked out, but it doesn't look like its in the cards.



not sure where you pulled this from but they're not "throwing in the towel". Both are moving forward.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 05 Jun 2014, 16:37
by weasel1962
popcorn wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:Well, Spaz, the way I've heard it, the GA effort isn't going to be sufficient, so they are going to give BAE a try before throwing in the towel. I'd really like it if the rail gun worked out, but it doesn't look like its in the cards.

Seeing is believing and come,2016 and they do manage to test a prototype rail gun aboard a ship then I count that as major progress,,a significant step up from,what they've achieved in a lab environment. It would help your story if the naysayers could go on record as to their specific concerns and reveal their identities and credentials,for the record,so,we,may also determine how credible they are,,all in the interest of having a meaningful discussion. Otherwise it's really in the realm,of unsubstantiated,hearsay really.


Whether BAE gets a try hasn't been decided. ONR has basically thrown out a RFP which closes later this year. We'll know whether the phase 2 research contracts get awarded after that.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 10 Jun 2014, 16:48
by uclass



Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2014, 17:14
by spazsinbad
+ VIDEO ON PAGE.... Now on Utube....
Navy unveils prototype railguns
08 Jul 2014 Derek Staahl

"SAN DIEGO – Navy officials unveiled two prototype weapons Tuesday that have been cloaked in secrecy for years, and are capable of firing seven times the speed of sound.

They are electromagnetic railguns, developed by the Office of Naval Research.

A railgun can fire a projectile up to 5,600 miles per hour – about six times faster than a bullet from a handgun – at a range of up to 110 miles, Rear Adm. Matthew Klunder said.

It delivers up to 32 megajoules of energy.

“Literally it is like taking a huge freight train and going through the wall that's a few feet to my left at over 100 miles an hour. Right through that wall,” said Klunder, the Chief of Naval Research.

The Navy showed off two working prototypes aboard the USS Millinocket at Naval Base San Diego. They fire by sending an electrical pulse across metal rails to create electromagnetic force. There's nothing explosive inside or out...."

Source: http://www.sandiego6.com/news/local/Nav ... 45791.html


Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2014, 17:34
by KamenRiderBlade
spazsinbad wrote:+ VIDEO ON PAGE.... Now on Utube....
Navy unveils prototype railguns
08 Jul 2014 Derek Staahl

"SAN DIEGO – Navy officials unveiled two prototype weapons Tuesday that have been cloaked in secrecy for years, and are capable of firing seven times the speed of sound.

They are electromagnetic railguns, developed by the Office of Naval Research.

A railgun can fire a projectile up to 5,600 miles per hour – about six times faster than a bullet from a handgun – at a range of up to 110 miles, Rear Adm. Matthew Klunder said.

It delivers up to 32 megajoules of energy.

“Literally it is like taking a huge freight train and going through the wall that's a few feet to my left at over 100 miles an hour. Right through that wall,” said Klunder, the Chief of Naval Research.

The Navy showed off two working prototypes aboard the USS Millinocket at Naval Base San Diego. They fire by sending an electrical pulse across metal rails to create electromagnetic force. There's nothing explosive inside or out...."

Source: http://www.sandiego6.com/news/local/Nav ... 45791.html



I bet you that once they put the shroud on the rail gun, it'll look similar to other naval guns.

=D

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2014, 18:10
by steakanddoritos
I laughed so hard when they used the Transformers 2 clip.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2015, 14:47
by spazsinbad
Washingtontonians can check out the RAILGUN:
U.S. Navy Electromagnetic Railgun Weapon to Debut at Future Force EXPO
22 Jan 2015 NAVY Recognition

"The Electromagnetic Railgun—a weapon that will play a significant role in the future of the U.S. Navy—will be on display to the public for the first time on the East Coast Feb. 4-5 at the Naval Future Force Science and Technology (S&T) EXPO in Washington, D.C., officials at the Office of Naval Research (ONR) announced....

...The Railgun program continues to move swiftly toward scheduled at-sea testing in 2016. Its revolutionary technology relies on electricity instead of traditional chemical propellants, with magnetic fields created by high electrical currents launching projectiles at distances over 100 nautical miles—and at speeds that exceed Mach 6, or six times the speed of sound.

That velocity allows the weapon’s projectiles to rely on kinetic energy for maximum effect, and reduces the amount of high explosives needed to be carried on ships. It also minimizes the dangers of unexploded ordnance remaining on the battlefield.

“The Electromagnetic Railgun brings significant technological advances to our Sailors and Marines,” said Roger Ellis, program manager at ONR. “As the system moves forward along its planned schedule from the laboratory launcher, we’ve achieved breakthroughs in compact power and gun design, and will test the next phase of prototype at both sea- and land-based sites in 2016 and 2017.”..."

Source: http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.ph ... ew&id=2353


Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 24 Jan 2015, 01:50
by bring_it_on
AFRL Boss confirmed a 600 million investment in the HSSW being split equally between DARPA and AFRL.

The Air Force and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency hope to start flying follow-ons to the X-51 hypersonic testbed circa 2018, Maj. Gen. Thomas Masiello, head of Air Force Research Laboratory, told Air Force Magazine in a Wednesday interview. "We've each invested about $300 million" in a project AFRL is calling the High Speed Strike Weapon, Masiello said. Two hypersonic vehicles are being explored: one is a waverider using technology like that of the X-51, which achieved 209 seconds of hypersonic flying in 2013. The other is called tactical boost-glide technology, "where there's no scramjet power; you're just basically taking a booster, accelerating it to hypersonic speed, then it glides to the target," Masiello explained. If all goes well, he said, by 2020, "we could have the technology matured to the point of a program of record," applying hypersonics to a cruise missile-type of weapon "with an acceptable level of risk." Beyond that, by 2030, Masiello envisions a reusable platform that could be used for intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance work, which could be turned within days between missions. By "2040-plus" AFRL expects "a no-kidding, re-usable, persistent, penetrating hypersonic vehicle that could be manned or unmanned."


http://www.airforcemag.com/DRArchive/Pa ... Hyper.aspx

Also see this as a bit of a background on the current status of AFRL's hypersonic R&D:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mZopFn ... =WL#t=1844

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2015, 00:08
by spazsinbad
The Real Railgun of the U.S. Navy
Published on Apr 7, 2014 Department of Defense

"Railguns: weapons that can tear through walls like a pencil punctures a balloon. If you thought lasers were going to change the game, rail guns are going to blast the doors wide open."


Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 27 Jan 2015, 01:01
by popcorn
The potential threat from hypersonic glide weapons spurring interest in THAAD ER but only as a stop-gap. Would love to see what a railgun with a fragmenting round performs.



http://m.aviationweek.com/defense/thaad ... ch-mission

However, Lockheed is restarting its Thaad-ER campaign now, in an attempt to exploit this narrow window of opportunity. Although Thaad-ER would provide some capability against a rudimentary hypersonic threat, it is not an optimal solution, the industry source says. Ideally, the Pentagon hopes to have matured other technologies —such as railguns or directed energy—to counter the threat. But those are not expected until the mid-to-late 2020s. Until then, Thaad-ER could fill a gap.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2015, 04:29
by eskodas
Other documents with X-51.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014SET/Wilcox.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012set/Leugers.pdf

https://info.aiaa.org/Regions/Western/O ... t_Test.pdf

http://aviationweek.com/awin/high-speed ... -51-flight

On reaching the launch point south of the Channel Islands and northwest of San Nicholas island, the X-51A was dropped at Mach 0.8. The Atacms ignited and propelled the entire 25-ft.-long stack—including the booster, inter-stage and X-51A cruiser—for 29 sec. until it reached 63,000 ft. and Mach 4.9. The cruiser separated and coasted to Mach 4.8 before the scramjet was started using ethylene. The scramjet then transitioned to JP-7 hydrocarbon fuel, successfully overcoming the point at which the second flight failed in June 2011, when “we unstarted the engine and we lost control of inlet dynamics,” says Brink. The X-51A flew for another 210 sec. under scramjet power, climbing to 64,000 ft. with a constant dynamic pressure (q) trajectory of 2,200-2,350 lb. per square foot. Peak acceleration was over 0.2g, notes Brink.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2015, 20:51
by archeman
eskodas wrote:Other documents with X-51.

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2014SET/Wilcox.pdf

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012set/Leugers.pdf

https://info.aiaa.org/Regions/Western/O ... t_Test.pdf

http://aviationweek.com/awin/high-speed ... -51-flight

On reaching the launch point south of the Channel Islands and northwest of San Nicholas island, the X-51A was dropped at Mach 0.8. The Atacms ignited and propelled the entire 25-ft.-long stack—including the booster, inter-stage and X-51A cruiser—for 29 sec. until it reached 63,000 ft. and Mach 4.9. The cruiser separated and coasted to Mach 4.8 before the scramjet was started using ethylene. The scramjet then transitioned to JP-7 hydrocarbon fuel, successfully overcoming the point at which the second flight failed in June 2011, when “we unstarted the engine and we lost control of inlet dynamics,” says Brink. The X-51A flew for another 210 sec. under scramjet power, climbing to 64,000 ft. with a constant dynamic pressure (q) trajectory of 2,200-2,350 lb. per square foot. Peak acceleration was over 0.2g, notes Brink.


So how much better is this 210 seconds of dual fuel Hypersonic Ramjet than just extending the burn of the rocket booster a little longer, or 2nd stage smaller rocket? I assume despite different propulsion systems, either could perform the 'glide/coast phase' equally well.

Is there a table or graph that shows the fantastic advantage that an F-35 weapon with Hypersonic Ramjet has over a very similar weapon powered by conventional Rockets?
There certainly seems to be a fantastic development and engineering cost difference.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2015, 21:56
by eskodas
You won't get 210 seconds of burn of the same intensity in a normal rocket, normal rockets need an oxidising agent, due to the hypersonic speed of this rocket it's taking in a sh*t ton of air each second and uses that instead as oxygen which gives much more room for fuel which means more range. The fuel this scramjet uses is simple old JP-7.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 090105.png

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 05 Feb 2015, 22:54
by sprstdlyscottsmn
So a solid rocket boost phase and a JP-7 powered steady Mach 4 cruise for 200 miles?

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2015, 01:28
by eskodas
Boosted to Mach 4.8 then scramjet to Mach 5.1 for 210 seconds or 195 miles, they plan to extend that range to ~600nm

For reference, this is about .93 miles a second, an M-16 bullet when leaving the barrel is 0.58 miles per second.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2015, 04:34
by archeman
eskodas wrote:Boosted to Mach 4.8 then scramjet to Mach 5.1 for 210 seconds or 195 miles, they plan to extend that range to ~600nm

For reference, this is about .93 miles a second, an M-16 bullet when leaving the barrel is 0.58 miles per second.


But what has been tested in the samples above used a rather large ex-Army ground rocket booster to reach that Mach 4.8, not something that would fit on an F-35.
So that means the missile for our aircraft would have to push a much smaller package up to that Mach number where the magic can begin.

Thanks eskodas, for that chart, but what would make the comparison really meaningful and explain the real value of this Hypersonic Ramjet is if there was a chart showing:
* absolute range comparison
* approximate cost comparison (including this protracted research & development period) for:
** fixed Payload weight
** fixed Total Weapon weight

pure rocket vs rocket/scramjet.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2015, 06:23
by bring_it_on
The HSSW is the missile project for the USAF. I am not sure whether that would be an F-35 weapons system solution (size) but that has been hinted in the past. They are spending 600 Million $ on this project split between the AFRL and DARPA. If they really decide to push the range which seems the logical thing to do given the Pacific (Tyranny of distance as the USAF charecterizes the theater) it could become a system for the bomber fleet.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2015, 06:49
by eskodas
This isn't the working model that will be on the F-35, this is a maturity/prototype.

Guided by results from the X-51A, Brink says researchers have a hit list of potential enhancements and improvements that will be used to develop the concept into a tactically relevant hypersonic weapon. The baseline speed and approximate size of the X-51A will continue to form the model for the HSSW, which will be compatible with the B-2A internal weapon bay and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2015, 08:11
by popcorn
bring_it_on wrote:The HSSW is the missile project for the USAF. I am not sure whether that would be an F-35 weapons system solution (size) but that has been hinted in the past. They are spending 600 Million $ on this project split between the AFRL and DARPA. If they really decide to push the range which seems the logical thing to do given the Pacific (Tyranny of distance as the USAF charecterizes the theater) it could become a system for the bomber fleet.

IIRC, from scanty initial reports, HSSW is intended for external carriage on F-35 and internal carriage on LRSB.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 06 Feb 2015, 12:39
by sferrin
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:So a solid rocket boost phase and a JP-7 powered steady Mach 4 cruise for 200 miles?


And call it "ASALM". (Except it's more like Mach 5+ and 300 miles.) Yeah, let that sink in. A 35 year old missile, about the size of SRAM, outperformed the X-51 that required a friggin' ATACMs booster and a B-52 to lug it into the air.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2016, 22:16
by popcorn
Back to railguns, progress is being reported in efforts to develop smart projectiles
http://www.seapowermagazine.org/stories ... ilgun.html

Railgun Projectiles Achieve Success in Series of Critical Open-Range Testing

SAN DIEGO — General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems (GA-EMS) projectiles with prototype components for a Control and Actuation System (CAS) successfully performed programmed actions and communicated component performance to a ground station via a telemetry link in tests carried out Dec. 7-10 at the U.S. Army’s Dugway Proving Ground in Utah, the company announced in a Jan. 8 release.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2016, 01:15
by zerion

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2016, 02:00
by popcorn
Corrected... thanks.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2016, 05:58
by element1loop
sferrin wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:So a solid rocket boost phase and a JP-7 powered steady Mach 4 cruise for 200 miles?


And call it "ASALM". (Except it's more like Mach 5+ and 300 miles.) Yeah, let that sink in. A 35 year old missile, about the size of SRAM, outperformed the X-51 that required a friggin' ATACMs booster and a B-52 to lug it into the air.


Which strongly suggests there's more to this story than provided specs capture. :wink:

Have you considered the Mach=5.1 is the average flight speed, not a peak speed?

Let's say its the average, at a minimum you get (while the engine is still burning):

3.5 mins @ Mach 5.1 average for range under flat 'trajectory' power of 170.6 nm, or 316 km at cutout.

And if you loft an X-51 to 300k ft, minutes before cutout at its 'apex', then going ballistic, or rather, gliding ... in next to no atmosphere?

An ASALM's 300 miles would make it look like a slacker for range compared to an X-51 doing that, I reckon.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 09 Jan 2016, 06:19
by popcorn
Well, there is an o erlap between ramjet and scramjet performance envelopes. Scramjets will power the hypersonic paeadigm.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2016, 13:00
by popcorn
popcorn wrote:Well, there is an overlap between ramjet and scramjet performance envelopes. Scramjets will power the hypersonic paradigm.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2016, 17:40
by sferrin
element1loop wrote:Which strongly suggests there's more to this story than provided specs capture. :wink:


Yeah, like the ATACMs booster accelerated the X-51 to Mach 4.8 and the thing barely had enough net thrust to accelerate to Mach 5.1. ASALM had a much smaller, integral booster, that got it to about Mach 2 where it accelerated at multiple Gs up to Mach 5.4.

element1loop wrote:Have you considered the Mach=5.1 is the average flight speed, not a peak speed?


No, because it wasn't.

element1loop wrote:An ASALM's 300 miles would make it look like a slacker for range compared to an X-51 doing that, I reckon.



Unlikely given that ASALM was faster than X-51.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2016, 12:13
by element1loop
sferrin wrote:ASALM had a much smaller, integral booster, that got it to about Mach 2 where it accelerated at multiple Gs up to Mach 5.4.


I acknowledge your points, especially the booster size, but there are avenues to get beyond that. But also miniaturization will come as the tech matures. So I'm not so sure the booster size is a prohibitive factor (I'll clarify below), especially if a boost staged surface to air system like an SM6 replacement were desired. But there's still another way to get there.

The engine type is observed to work at almost twice the X-51's reported speed to date. And more practical fuel's combustion is currently being studied/experimented on. Apparently not going too well yet. The engine snuffed sooner than it ran out of fuel in test #4.

But if it had continued to burn as long as expected it could have gone much further than it did. Even so, Boeing puts range @ ~460 miles (740 km - not too shabby) for a test just under 70K feet. Apparently it's a pretty good glider even if it only reached max speed of M=5.1.

But if the the engine had run as long as expected, even at only Mach 5.1 it would have gone out to much higher radius.

And if you put it into a shallow climb as it accelerates, even if just to prevent it over-speeding (and over heating) in follow on tests, it will go out much further again. Looking at the X-51 it has a lot of leading edge features that suggest they're expecting it to go a lot faster at some point, if they can crack the use of a practical operational fuel, and maintain combustion until it's all used up.

So to my mind there's clear potential here from that alone, let alone if they can make it go much faster than Mach 5.1. I also wouldn't discount practicality of hypersonic tech by a long way yet, or view it as comparable or inferior to a ramjet missile's performance, let alone consider it's potential sub-par, in a practical weapon design.

Has a ramjet ever done Mach ~9.7? But the first X scramjet vehicle did.

And ASALM's propulsion had how many prior decades developing its tech, operating it and miniaturizing it to present-day AAM scale proportions?

Regarding that large booster issue, an SR-71's jet engines mechanically convert to ramjet operation, at speed and altitude, so can a single-use ramjet also convert cheaply and simply into a scramjet engine at Mach ~5, in a similar way?

I don't see why not, they are related, and very similar - far more so than a jet and ramjet transition.

If that can be done how big does a practical weapon's booster stage have to be, for a practical SAM or AAM? And how much can the whole thing be miniaturized?

Quite a lot more than an ASALM, I expect.

I don't see anything prohibitive here, if a common fuel for both RAM and SCRAM operation can be identified and combustion conditions mastered.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2018, 10:33
by eloise
They can probably just put radar seeker on Blue/silver sparrow and you got yourself a hypersonic weapon
1.PNG

rkWUlBI.png

4tEagU9.png

xWJzdh2.png

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2018, 20:14
by garrya
Did you know in the early 1970s, the USAF tested air-launching a Minuteman 1b ICBM from a C-5A Galaxy transport aircraft
MMIII_C5_airdrop(Oct_1974).jpg

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2018, 04:27
by castlebravo
US DoD has done all kinds of crazy things with missiles, and some of the more impressive stuff happened as early as the 60's. My favorite is the Sprint ABM. Zero to Mach 10 in 5 seconds! The missile was supersonic before it left the launch silo, and it pulled 100g of acceleration.

I wonder if modern guidance systems could be accurate and compact enough to allow for something like a mini-Sprint with either a small frag warhead, or hit-to-kill capability for terminal defense against air-breathing hypersonic weapons.

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 31 Oct 2018, 08:03
by eloise
garrya wrote:Did you know in the early 1970s, the USAF tested air-launching a Minuteman 1b ICBM from a C-5A Galaxy transport aircraft
The attachment MMIII_C5_airdrop(Oct_1974).jpg is no longer available

That impressive but not as impressive as GAM-87 Skybolt
GAM-87.PNG


China is currently testing ALBM too. The new missile is CH-AS-X-13
1.PNG
2.PNG

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2019, 02:26
by eloise
New missiles:
Image
Image

Image
Image
Image

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2019, 07:16
by eloise
Image
Image

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2019, 22:20
by spazsinbad
Raytheon, Northrop Partner To Co-develop Scramjet Missile [best read at source for more details]
18 Jun 2019 Steve Trimble

"Raytheon Missile Systems and Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems announced a partnership at the Paris Air Show on June 18 to co-develop a scramjet-powered hypersonic missile.

Though presented as a newly-signed partnership, the announcement in reality lifts the veil on a secret, multi-year collaboration between the two companies to develop an advanced new high-speed weapon system as one of two competitors for the High-speed Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC) funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency.

The partnership is so advanced that the Raytheon/Northrop HAWC design is ready to enter flight testing “very soon,” said Tom Bussing, vice president of Raytheon Advanced Missile Systems. “This weapon is fundamentally game-changing. There’s nothing like it,” Bussing said.

Lockheed Martin also is developing a scramjet-powered missile for the HAWC program….

...The new scramjet propulsion system for the Raytheon/Northrop HAWC is designed exclusively with an additive manufacturing process, he said. That approach helped significantly reduce the weight of the scramjet, which amounts to about half the mass of the engine aboard the Boeing X-51 a decade ago, Wilcox said.

Raytheon is contributing to the design of the HAWC missile, which was revealed by Aviation Week ShowNews on Monday. It features a contoured nose and standard body, although the released image masks the shape of the classified inlet design.

The Raytheon/Northrop team are developing the HAWC initially for an air-launched application, but there are plans to develop versions that can be launched from ground vehicles and ships."

Graphic: https://aviationweek.com/site-files/avi ... ax-43a.jpg

Image

Source: https://aviationweek.com/space/raytheon ... et-missile

Re: Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2019, 00:36
by citanon
This theDrive article tries to add some "color" to the Raytheon, NG collaboration story.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/2 ... ic-missile