Back to news

April 27, 2020 | International, Aerospace

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.

By

WASHINGTON: 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, a senior official said Wednesday. Those weapons will range from huge rocket-powered boost-glide missiles, fired from Army trucks and Navy submarines at more than Mach 10, to more compact and affordable air-breathing cruise missiles, fired from aircraft at a relatively modest Mach 5-plus.

“It isn't an either-or,” said Mark Lewis, modernization director for Pentagon R&D chief Mike Griffin. “It isn't rocket-boost or air-breathing, we actually want both, because those systems do different things.”

Right now, however, US combat units have neither. Inconsistent focus and funding over the years means that “we had a number of programs in the department that were very solid technology development programs, but at the end of those programs, we would have prototypes and we'd have weapons in the single-digit counts,” Lewis said during a webcast with the Air Force Association's Mitchell Institute. “If you've got a program that delivers eight missiles and then stops, well, which of the thousand targets in our target set are we going to use those eight missiles against?”

With hypersonics now a top priority for both Undersecretary Griffin and Defense Secretary Mark Esper, the Pentagon is trying to improve that stop-and-go track record with a new “hypersonic acceleration plan” – no pun intended, Lewis said. Griffin likes to compare the effort to the Cold War, when the US had a massive nuclear weapons infrastructure capable of building complex components by the tens of thousands.

“We want to deliver hypersonics at scale,” Lewis said. “That means hundreds of weapons in a short period of time in the hands of the warfighter.”

Mass-production, in turn, requires production facilities – but today hypersonic prototypes are basically hand-crafted by R&D labs like Sandia. Lewis and his counterpart in the Pentagon's acquisition & sustainment directorate, Kevin Fahey, are “co-chairing what we're were calling a war room ... looking at the hypersonic industrial base,” he said. “That's not just the primes, but the entire industrial base” down to small, specialized suppliers.

Controlling cost is both essential to large-scale production and a huge challenge, Lewis acknowledged. “We don't know what these things cost yet,” he said. “We've asked the primes to consider costs as they're developing.”

Which hypersonic weapons the Pentagon buys also makes a major difference. “There are some technology choices we can make that lead us to more cost-effective systems,” he said. “I'm especially enthusiastic about hypersonic weapons that come off the wings of airplanes and come out of bomb bays, [because] I think those are some of the keys to delivering hypersonic capabilities at scale and moderate cost.”

Likewise, “[there's] larger investment now in the rocket boost systems,” Lewis said, “[but] one of the reasons I'm so enthusiastic about scramjet-powered systems, air-breathing systems is I think that, fundamentally, they can be lower-cost than their rocket-boosted alternatives.”

Why is that? Understanding the policy, it turns out, requires a basic understanding of the physics.

Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. graphic from DoD data

Breaking Defense graphic from DoD data

Four Types of Hypersonics

“Hypersonics isn't a single thing,” Lewis said. “It's a range of applications, a range of attributes, [defined by] the combination of speed and maneuverability and trajectory.”

To put it in simple terms – and I'll beg the forgiveness of any aerospace engineers reading this – there are two kinds of hypersonic projectile, based on how they fly: one is an air-breathing engine flying through the atmosphere, like a jet plane or cruise missile; the other is a rocket booster arcing to the edge of space, like an ICBM. There are also two kinds of platform you can launch from: an aircraft in flight high and fast above the earth, or a relatively slow-moving vehicle on or below the surface, like an Army truck, Navy warship or submarine.

Combine these and you get four types. Lewis thinks all four could be worth pursuing, although the Pentagon currently has programs – that we know about – for only three:

  • Air-launched boost-glide: Air Force ARRW (Air-launched Rapid Response Weapon). The Air Force also had another program in this category, HCSW (Hypersonic Conventional Strike Weapon), but they canceled it to focus on ARRW, which the service considers more innovative and promising.
  • Surface-launched boost-glide: Army LRHW (Long Range Hypersonic Weapon) and Navy CPS (Conventional Prompt Strike). Both weapons share the same rocket booster, built by the Navy, and the same Common Hypersonic Glide Body, built by the Army, but one tailors the package to launch from a wheeled vehicle and the other from a submarine.
  • Air-launched air-breathing: HAWC (Hypersonic Air-breathing Weapons Concept) and HSW-ab (Hypersonic Strike Weapon-air breathing). Arguably the most challenging and cutting-edge technology, these programs are both currently run by DARPA, which specializes in high-risk, high-return research, but they'll be handed over to the Air Force when they mature.
  • Surface-launched air-breathing: This is the one category not in development – at least not in the unclassified world. But Lewis said, “eventually, you could see some ground-launched air breathers as well. I personally think those are very promising.”

Each of these has its own advantages and disadvantages, Lewis explained.

Rocket boosters are proven technology, offering tremendous speed and range. The Minuteman III ICBM, introduced in 1970, can travel over 6,000 miles at Mach 23. Their one drawback is that ICBMs can't steer. Once launched, they follow a predictable course like a cannon ball, which is why they're called ballistic missiles. The big innovation of boost-glide weaponry is that it replaces the traditional warhead with an agile glider. Once the rocket booster burns out, the glide body detaches and coasts the rest of the way, skipping nimbly across the upper layers of the atmosphere like a stone across the pond.

But boost-glide has some big limitations. First, once the rocket booster detaches, the glide body has no engine of its own so it just coasts, losing speed throughout its flight. Second, precisely because the rocket launch is so powerful, it puts tremendous strain on the weapon, whose delicate electronics must be hardened against shock and heat. Third, the booster is big, because a rocket not only has to carry fuel, it has to carry tanks of oxygen to burn the fuel.

Sydney J. Freedberg Jr. graphic from DoD data

Breaking Defense graphic from DoD data

An air-breathing engine, by contrast, can be significantly smaller. It just has to carry the fuel, because it can scoop up all the oxygen it needs from the atmosphere. That means the whole weapon can be smaller, making it much easier to fit on an aircraft, and that it can accelerate freely during flight instead of just coasting, making it more maneuverable.

But while conventional jet engines are well-proven technology, they don't function at hypersonic speeds, because the airflow pours their intakes far too fast. So you need a sophisticated alternative such as a scramjet, a complex, costly technology so far found only on experimental vehicles, like the Air Force's revolutionary Boeing X-51.

Even with a scramjet, you can't fly too high because the air doesn't provide the needed oxygen. That means air-breathing weapons can't reach the same near-space altitudes as boost-glide missiles. They also can't fly nearly as fast. Lewis expects air-breathers will probably top out around Mach 7, half or less the peak speed of a boost-glide weapon. (That said, remember the glider will have slowed down somewhat by the time it reaches the target).

Sandia National Laboratories graphic

Sandia National Laboratories glide vehicle, the ancestor of the Army-built Common Hypersonic Glide Body

The platform you launch from also has a major impact on performance. Warships, submarines, and long-bodied heavy trucks can carry bigger weapons than aircraft, but the weapons they carry need to be bigger because they have to start from low altitude and low speed and go all the way to high-altitude hypersonic flight. By contrast, an air-launched weapon doesn't need to be as big, because it's already flying high and fast even before it turns on its motor.

All these factors suggest that the big boost-glide weapons are probably best launched from land or sea, the smaller air-breathing ones from aircraft in flight. But since boost-gliders go farther and faster than air-breathers, you still want them as an option for your bombers for certain targets. On the flipside, while a naval vessel or ground vehicle has plenty of room to carry boost-glide weapons for ultra-long-range strikes, it can also use the same space to carry a larger number of the smaller air-breathers for closer targets.

“We're interested in basically the full range,” Lewis said. “We've got some ideas of things we want to put into play quickly, but we're also extremely open-minded about future applications, future technologies.”

https://breakingdefense.com/2020/04/hypersonics-dod-wants-hundreds-of-weapons-asap/

On the same subject

  • Army missile defense battle command system takes out cruise missile threats in major test

    August 14, 2020 | International, Aerospace

    Army missile defense battle command system takes out cruise missile threats in major test

    By: Jen Judson   16 hours ago WASHINGTON — The Army's once-problem-plagued air-and-missile defense battle command system took out two cruise missile threat targets nearly simultaneously using Patriot missiles in a major live fire event Aug. 13, according to service officials in charge of the effort. The cruise missiles flew at a low-altitude, maneuvering through a mountain range. The Integrated Battle Command System (IBCS) took real-time data from Patriot and Sentinel radars and tracked the threat. IBCS sent engagement options to air defenders on the ground and two Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles controlled by IBCS intercepted both threats. The success of the limited user test for IBCS, which began several weeks ago in the New Mexico desert, is like “night and day,” compared to a previous attempt in 2016, Brig. Gen. Brian Gibson, who is in charge of Army air-and-missile defense modernization, told Defense News during its Space and Missile Defense Symposium Debrief event Aug. 5. “We didn't even get through phase one,” which lasted “just days,” in the first limited user test, Gibson said. Space and Missile Defense Command Commander Lt. Gen. Dan Karbler had overseen the Army Test and Evaluation Command during the first IBCS limited user test and told reporters Aug. 5 that during the first attempt “the system performance was so unstable, we really couldn't even get it started. We couldn't collect any good data. There was multiple software challenges within the system just to try to get it into the network. So it was a very, very difficult endeavor and so, honestly, couldn't pass LUT and there was a lot of work to do.” Due to those problems and the Army's new plans to expand IBCS capability to tie to any sensor or any shooter on the battlefield delayed the entire program by roughly four years. The live fire marks the first time an entire operational battalion was involved in an IBCS test along with multiple sensors, shooters and mission command platforms, making it the most complex test the system has seen to date, Gibson told reporters Aug. 13 shortly after the test event. The cruise missile targets were defeated by PAC-3 missiles coming from entirely separate launchers at the same battery site, Col. Phil Rottenborn, IBCS project manager within the Army's Program Executive Office Missiles and Space, said. IBCS also made it possible to move Sentinel radars more forward on the battlefield, providing more time to track the target, which allowed the commander on the ground to engage a single interceptor per target, said Col. Tony Behrens, Army capability manager and director of the Army Air & Missile Defense Command. Typically, two interceptors, one following the other, are deployed against a single missile target in case the first misses. With IBCS, the Army will be able to use fewer interceptors in engagements, Behrens said. The system was also challenged by electronic attack during the live fire where one of the seven integrated fire control network relays was taken out of the mix by a jammer. The system was able to operate and defeat challenging target sets through debris even with a relay removed from the game. The Army will conduct another live fire test next week with senior officials attending, a presence that will up the ante. IBCS will go up against both a cruise missile and a ballistic missile during that event, according to Army Futures Command Commander Gen. Mike Murray. Once the limited user test wraps up in mid-September, the Army will need to go through “terabytes, lots and lots of data” over the following three months, Murray said. The service will then go before a production decision board, currently scheduled for Nov. 20. And if IBCS is approved to move forward, the service will conduct an Initial Operational Test and Evaluation of the system in a year. The Army plans to equip its first unit with IBCS — the same battalion executing the LUT — in fiscal 2022. IBCS will not only serve as the brains of the Army's future Integrated Air-and-Missile Defense System, but will also be the command-and-control system for its future Integrated Fire Protection Capability that will defend against rockets, artillery and mortars as well as cruise missile and unmanned aircraft threats. And IBCS is likely to play an integral part in the next generation program called Joint All-Domain Command and Control (JADC2), which is expected to provide an information architecture across all services and domains for warfare. https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/smd/2020/08/13/army-missile-defense-battle-command-system-takes-out-cruise-missile-threats-in-major-test/

  • Pourquoi la Belgique (et d’autres pays européens) préfèrent acheter des avions de chasse américains?

    October 29, 2018 | International, Aerospace

    Pourquoi la Belgique (et d’autres pays européens) préfèrent acheter des avions de chasse américains?

    La Belgique, tout comme l'Italie et les Pays-Bas, ont préféré acheter américain plutôt qu'européen pour leur défense aérienne. Et ce n'est ni le prix, ni les capacités techniques du F-35 qui les ont convaincu, mais leurs alliances. Le “contrat du siècle” belge est tombé dans les mains des Américains: jeudi, la Belgique a officialisé le choix de l'avion de chasse F-35 du groupe américain Lockheed Martin pour remplacer sa flotte d'avions de chasse F-16, écartant le Rafale du français Dassault et le Typhoon du consortium européen Eurofighter. Un achat estimé à 3,6 milliards d'euros. Une décision qui passe mal auprès des partenaires européens de la Belgique. Emmanuel Macron a dit dès le lendemain regretter "la décision du gouvernement belge d'acheter des avions de chasse F-35 américains "plutôt qu'une offre européenne", une décision qui "stratégiquement va a contrario des intérêts européens". La Belgique a choisi son allié américain La Belgique n'est pas le premier pays de l'UE a mettre un coup de canif dans l'Europe de la Défense. L'Italie et les Pays-Bas ont déjà fait le choix du F-35 plutôt que d'un avion européen. Si la Belgique justifie son choix pour des raisons techniques: coordination plus simple avec les pays voisins (comme les Pays-Bas), emport de bombes, interopérabilité au sein de l'Otan... la raison serait surtout diplomatique. "Le choix de l'avion de chasse fait partie des achats les plus stratégiques pour un pays. C'est une arme de souveraineté et choisir une technologie, c'est s'engager pour 30 ou 40 ans. Vous êtes ensuite pieds et poings liés avec votre fournisseur", affirme Philippe Plouvier, directeur associé au Boston Consulting Group sur les questions de défense et d'aéronautique. "Si vous faites une carte du monde, des achats d'avions de chasse par pays, c'est très révélateur des alliances. Quand la Belgique choisit le F-35, elle choisit un parapluie de défense américain plutôt que franco-allemand", poursuit-il. Une explication que donne aussi, à demi-mot, ce vendredi le premier ministre belge Charles Michel: "Pour moi les Etats-Unis ne sont pas devenus un ennemi parce que Donald Trump est président". Et malgré les "divergences de vues" avec Washington "la sécurité pour nos petits-enfants sera liée au maintien et au renforcement d'une double alliance, européenne et transatlantique". Un avion très cher et pas encore opérationnel Car mieux vaut rester ami avec le pays qui vous vend des avions de chasse. Le choix du F-35 ferre la Belgique: "que se soit en termes de pièces détachés ou de mise à jour logicielle... Sans les Etats-Unis, les F-35 belges n'iront pas très loin”, concède Philippe Plouvier. Pour justifier leur choix, les Belges ne pourront en tout cas pas brandir l'argument du prix. Le coût du développement du F-35 a explosé les estimations de départ. L'avion collectionne les problèmes techniques et "il n'atteint pas encore les performances prévues initialement, notamment en termes de furtivité", reconnait Philippe Plouvier. Si 300 appareils ont déjà été livrés (principalement aux Etats-Unis, Canada et Royaume-Uni), les tests opérationnels du F-35 se finiront en 2019. Les pays qui l'ont choisi doivent donc s'attendre à voir la facture s'alourdir pour profiter des améliorations futures. "Ce qui est révolutionnaire dans cet avion, ce ne sont ni ses moteurs, ni sa structure, mais son logiciel embarqué. Les mises à jour auront un prix", promet-il. La fin de l'Europe de la défense? Les deux "perdants" du contrat belge n'ont pas tardé à réagir. Le Français Dassault Aviation a évoqué dans un communiqué un "mauvais signal pour la construction de l'Europe de la défense". De son côté d'Airbus, partenaire du programme Eurofighter, regrette "l'opportunité manquée de renforcer la coopération industrielle européenne au moment où l'on demande à l'Union Européenne de s'unir en matière de Défense". Les deux entreprises continuent en tout cas de travailler en commun pour le projet de Système de combat aérien futur (Scaf), voulu notamment par le président français Emmanuel Macron. "L'Europe doit développer une vraie capacité d'industrie de défense européenne, dans tous les pays qui croient à cette aventure. Ma détermination en sort renforcée", a-t-il déclaré vendredi. "Tout n'est pas perdu. La France, l'Allemagne et le Royaume-Uni ont la volonté de créer cet avion européen du futur", juge Philippe Plouvier. Pour le spécialiste, c'est peut-être un mal pour un bien que beaucoup de pays européens ne soient pas concernés. "Il faut reproduire l'exemple réussi du missilier européen MBDA, qui est compétitif, technologiquement haut de gamme et où la France et le Royaume-Uni ont un partage équilibré des responsabilités". Et éviter de reproduire les erreurs des programmes de l'avion de transport militaire A400M et celui de l'Eurofighter "avec des surcoûts, et de l'éparpillement industriel". https://www.bfmtv.com/economie/pourquoi-la-belgique-et-d-autres-pays-europeens-preferent-acheter-des-avions-de-chasse-americains-1552975.html

  • New Typhoon radar embodied for first flight

    January 18, 2024 | International, Aerospace

    New Typhoon radar embodied for first flight

    The European Common Radar System (ECRS) Mark 2 radar is being developed by Leonardo and integrated onto Typhoon by BAE Systems.

All news