Speed Kills: The Case For Hypersonic Weapons

[zhangmdev]

Look at the winglet and engine nacelle, those are definitely not Y-20.

As usual, there is very little information about Chinese military projects. Mostly just hearsay. While information on the other side is plenty, news outlets just shamelessly lift images to fill the blanks. Remember clips from Top Gun were used to promote their new fighters?

[sferrin]

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

The attachment 1.PNG is no longer available

The attachment 1.PNG is no longer available

Why would a Chinese missile be dropped out of the back of a C-17 or displayed under a C-5?

That the Y-20

Jesus.

[eloise]

051007-F-0000W-001_JPG.png

My bad my bad sorry

[eloise]

[eloise]

Global Strike Command is planning to put the hypersonic AGM-183 Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon externally on the B-1 bomber, and AFGSC chief Gen. Timothy Ray said he sees a conventional version of the Long-Range Stand-Off weapon as a sensible approach to replacing the conventional Air-Launched Cruise Missile if a weapon with longer range than the JASSM-ER is required.

Ray, in an interview that will appear in the May issue of Air Force Magazine, said he wants to refurbish and modernize the remaining B-1B aircraft after the Air Force retires 17 airframes from the fleet. That modification would include opening up eight external hardpoints on the bomber’s fuselage that were originally planned to carry two ALCMS each; subsequent treaty agreements took the B-1 out of the nuclear mission and the hardpoints were covered over.

“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 hypersonic cruise missile,” Ray said. A B-1 squadron typically has 18 aircraft.

The 412th test wing at Edwards AFB, Calif., demonstrated additional B-1 carriage options last August, including the use of external hardpoints, as well as expanded internal bays and use of the Common Strategic Rotary Launcher with the stealthy, conventional JASSM-ER.

Some airplanes “will need significant structural work,” Ray said. “We can do smart things, and we’ve got support from Congress to do this. This is a thing that we’re working to get ourselves through. We’ve had a very good dialog.”

Modifying the B-1s to carry the ARRW was not an item requested in the fiscal 2021 budget, Ray said, but it’s “a project we’re working on. There are several versions that we could contemplate, but we believe the easiest, fastest, and probably most effective in the short term will be to go with the external pylons.” The ARRW, he said, is “a good weapon airframe and configuration match to get us quickly into that game.”

Asked if AFGSC’s preference is for ARRW versus other hypersonic missiles, Ray said, “I think we’re going to commit to the ARRW, because I think our carriage capability is good for that.”

The Air Force is also working on the Hypersonic Air-breathing weapon Concept, or HAWC, with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Pentagon officials said the Air Force has been thinking about mixed carriage of hypersonic missiles both internally and externally, on the B-1 and B-52. Using the external hardpoints and the CSRL, a B-1 could conceivably carry 31 hypersonic missiles.

Ray said the B-52 fleet also will be configured for hypersonic missiles, and because that airframe will have new engines, radar, communications, and weapons, the plan now is to increase the bomber test fleet from two to eight aircraft at Edwards. The B-1 will be able to take some of the “load off the B-52” in hypersonic missile testing, he said. The test program, which was developed in coordination with Air Force Materiel Command, is “very aggressive” and will required USAF “to commit more aircraft, and maintainers, and operators” to test over the next three-to-five years, Ray said.

“The bomber world has been very good about combining and integrating operational and developmental test and leveraging the number of resources. And this was a conversation with [AFMC] … that we came to this solution set.”

Ray said AFGSC has not set a requirement for a conventional version of LRSO to mirror the ALCM/Conventional ALCM USAF has operated for the last 30 years, but that such a weapon would be a logical approach if a weapon with longer range is needed.

“First things first: the ALCM is aging out on us,” and must be replaced, he said. But, “I’ve shot CALCM in anger…the utility of those is unquestionable.” He’s pleased with how LRSO is progressing—“I think that’s going to be a very, very good missile”—and if there was a sudden requirement for “an even longer-ranged cruise missile with conventional capability,” LRSO would be the place to start. However, Ray noted that changes to the program have to happen “within a treaty context.”

“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.”

https://www.airforcemag.com/afgsc-eyes- ... AM.twitter

[gc]

Having just two squadrons of well maintained Bones, with one squadron dedicated to the JASSM/LRASM mission sets and the other dedicated to ARRW taskings will provide the USAF will a highly effective conventional deterrence force. They do not have to fly much and can maintain their mission currencies on simulators to reduce the stress on the airframes, at least till we have the B-21s in large numbers.

[mixelflick]

Interesting... they were talking about mothballing so many B-1's not long ago. Interesting too, the activation of the B-1B's external weapons hardpoints. 25-30 years ago, I recall building a beautiful BIG model of such. Can't recall who made it (Testors or Revell were big then), but it was over 3 feet long, real rubber tires, detachable nosecone, rotating weapons bays, swing wings. It felt wonderful when it was done..

One thing I'll always remember though... the option to carry ALCM's on its external hardpoints. Over the years, I've seen many B-1's fly at airshows, in and out of bases etc.. Never once have I seen one carrying any weapon externally. It's hard to imagine why this capability hasn't been utilized prior.

If it has, I missed it. I suppose there may not have been any need: Those 3 weapons bays were enormous, and if memory serves they could carry more weapons than a B-52...

[sferrin]

Never once have I seen one carrying any weapon externally. It's hard to imagine why this capability hasn't been utilized prior.

Because an Arms Treaty prevented it. They had to deactivate the external hardpoints (they had to get a special exception to carry the Lightning targeting pod). The treaty also forced them to make the bulkhead between the forward two weapons bays permanent. Originally it could be removed, and the two small bays made into one big one, for a rotary AGM-86B launcher.

[zhangmdev]

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/725757/t ... riage-demo

Not combining two bays into one, but the bulkhead between the forward bay and middle one can still be moved forward to make the intermediate bay longer, from 180 inches to 269 inches.

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... onics.html

[jetblast16]

U.S. Hypersonic Strike Landscape : dial-a hypersonic?

[sferrin]

https://www.dvidshub.net/video/725757/time-lapse-b1-b-lancer-expanded-carriage-demo

Not combining two bays into one, but the bulkhead between the forward bay and middle one can still be moved forward to make the intermediate bay longer, from 180 inches to 269 inches.

https://www.defense-aerospace.com/artic ... onics.html

"“Additionally, we demonstrated that we can still carry weapons externally on six of the eight hard points, which increases our overall carriage capacity.” "

Hmm. I wonder why not eight out of eight?

Re: the forward bay, maybe there's an intermediate length. Standard is 180", I've seen 372" for the combined length (see below), your link mentions 269". That's pretty close to the middle of the forward bay (276"). Looking at several photos, maybe the 269" is the intermediate length and the 372" is the full length. The forward bay doors look like they're in two pieces. There is at least one B-1B pilot on this board. Maybe he could weigh in.

B-1B.JPG (43.65 KiB) Viewed 20602 times

b-1b-bank.jpg (42.99 KiB) Viewed 20602 times

(Come to think of it, that intermediate possibility is tickling my brain.)

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

what a marvel the B-1 was

[sferrin]

what a marvel the B-1 was

"Was"?

Was just looking at the Dash-1 for the B-1A and apparently it could hit it's maximum allowed speed without using maximum engine power "in most conditions" and advised using caution. It did reach Mach 2.22 in flight testing.

Also the AGM-129 stealth cruise missile was apparently designed for supersonic external carriage. (And you know it wouldn't be a B-52 doing it. )

Here's how 14 cruise missiles would have been carried externally:

s-l640.jpg (49.02 KiB) Viewed 20577 times

"The AGM-131A was planned to have only about 2/3 the size of an AGM-69A, so that 36 missiles could be carried by the B-1B, as compared to 24 AGM-69As."

Wonder how far a B-1B could fly with 36 SRAM 2s inside and 14 AGM-129s hanging outside? 50 nuclear missiles.

[aussiebloke]

"“Additionally, we demonstrated that we can still carry weapons externally on six of the eight hard points, which increases our overall carriage capacity.” "

Hmm. I wonder why not eight out of eight?

One of those eight hard points was rewired to accept the Sniper targeting pod:

B-1B aircraft require a hard-point modification in order to carry the pylon, the Sniper ATP, and extensive electrical and aviation modifications were made in order to allow the Sniper to operate with existing avionics, said Capt. Chris Glidden, 34th Aircraft Maintenance Unit officer in charge.

https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display ... bat-first/

[zhangmdev]

My understanding is that 6.8 m is about the size of the ALCM rotary launcher. The bulkhead is needed to install the launcher.

https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/alcm.htm

B-1b can not carry ALCM or any nuclear weapon because of the START. So Lancers with external ALCM carriage was never realized.

There is no weapon or launcher large enough to require the whole length of the two bays. That maybe change later, depending on if this hypersonic thing actually works. During the test phase, B-52 is still the preferred launch platform.