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.

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

November 10, 2020 | International, C4ISR

Mixed-reality systems can bring soldier feedback into development earlier than ever before. Here’s how the US Army is using it.
Nathan Strout ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, Md. — The U.S. Army's Combat Capabilities Development Command has made clear it wants to introduce soldier feedback earlier in the design process, ensuring that new technologies are meeting users' needs. “Within the CCDC, the need to get soldier feedback, to make sure that we're building the appropriate technologies and actually getting after the users' needs is critical,” said Richard Nabors, acting principal deputy for systems and modeling at the command's C5ISR Center (Command, Control, Computers, Communications, Cyber, Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance). “There's a concerted effort within the C5ISR Center to do more prototyping not just at the final system level ... but to do it at the component level before the system of systems is put together,” he added. But how can the service accomplish that with systems still in development? One answer: virtual reality. The Army's CCDC is testing this approach with its new artificial intelligence-powered tank concept: the Advanced Targeting and Lethality Aided System, or ATLAS. While tank operations are almost entirely manual affairs, ATLAS aims to automate the threat detection and targeting components of a gunner's job, greatly increasing the speed of end-to-end engagements. Using machine-learning algorithms and a mounted infrared sensor, ATLAS automatically detects threats and sends targeting solutions to a touch-screen display operated by the gunner. By touching an image of the target, ATLAS automatically slews the tank's gun to the threat and recommends the appropriate ammunition and response type. If everything appears correct, the gunner can simply pull the trigger to fire at the threat. The process takes just seconds, and the gunner can immediately move on to the next threat by touching the next target on the display. ATLAS could revolutionize the way tank crews operate — at least in theory. But to understand how the system works with real people involved and whether this is a tool gunners want, CCDC needed to test it with soldiers. The Army has set up an ATLAS prototype at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland, and it hopes to conduct a live-fire exercise soon with targets in a field. However, to collect useful feedback, CCDC is giving soldiers a more robust experience with the system that involves multiple engagements and varying levels of data quality. To do this, the command has built a mixed-reality environment. “It gives us the opportunity ... to get the soldiers in front of this system prior to it being here as a soldier touchpoint or using the live system so we get that initial feedback to provide back to the program, to get that soldier-centric design, to get their opinions on the system, be that from how the GUI is designed to some of the ways that the system would operate,” explained Christopher May, deputy director of the C5ISR Center's Modeling and Simulation Division. The virtual world In the new virtual prototyping environment — itself a prototype — users are placed in a 3D world that mimics the gunner station while using a physical controller and display that is a carbon copy of the current ATLAS design. The CCDC team can then feed simulated battlefield data into the system for soldiers to respond to as if they were actually using ATLAS. Like most virtual reality systems, the outside looks less impressive than the rendered universe that exists on the inside. Sitting down at the gunner's seat, the user's vision is enveloped by a trifold of tall blue walls, cutting the individual off from the real world. Directly in front of the chair is a recreation of ATLAS' touch-screen display and a 3D-printed copy of the controller. Putting on the virtual reality headset, the user is immersed in a 3D rendering of the ATLAS prototype's gunner station, but with some real-world elements. “We're leveraging multiple technologies to put this together. So as the operator looks around ... he has the ability to see the hand grips. He also has the ability to see his own hands,” May said. All in all, the mixed-reality environment creates the distinct impression that the user is in the gunner's chair during a real-life engagement. And that's the whole point. It's important to note the virtual reality system is not meant to test the quality of the AI system. While the system populates the virtual battlefield with targets the same way ATLAS would, it doesn't use the targeting algorithm. “We're not using the actual algorithm,” May said. “We're controlling how the algorithm performs.” Switching up the scenarios Another advantage to the mixed-reality environment: The Army can experiment with ATLAS in different vehicles. CCDC leaders were clear that ATLAS is meant to be a vehicle-agnostic platform. If the Army decides it wants ATLAS installed on a combat vehicle rather than a tank — like the current prototype — the CCDC team could recreate that vehicle within the simulated environment, giving users the opportunity to see how ATLAS would look on that platform. “We can switch that out. That's a 3D representation,” May said. “This could obviously be an existing tactical vehicle or a future tactical vehicle as part of the virtual prototype.” But is the virtual reality component really necessary to the experience? After all, the interactions with the ATLAS surrogate take place entirely through the touch screen and the controller, and a soldier could get an idea of how the system works without ever putting on the headset. May said that, according to feedback he's received, the virtual reality component adds that extra level of realism for the soldier. “They thought it added to their experience,” May said. “We've run through a version of this without the mixed reality — so they're just using the touch screens and the grips — and they thought the mixed reality added that realism to really get them immersed into the experience.” “We've had over [40 soldiers] leveraging the system that we have here to provide those early insights and then also to give us some quantitative data on how the soldier is performing,” he added. “So we're looking from a user evaluation perspective: Again, how does the [aided target recognition] system influence the soldier both positively, potentially and negatively? And then what is the qualitative user feedback just of the system itself?” In other words, the team is assessing how soldiers react to the simulated battlefield they are being fed through the mixed reality system. Not only is the team observing how soldiers operate when the data is perfect; it also wants to see how soldiers are impacted when fed less accurate data. Soldiers are also interviewed after using the system to get a sense of their general impressions. May said users are asked questions such as “How do you see this impacting the way that you currently do your operations?” or “What changes would you make based off your use of it?” The virtual prototyping environment is an outgrowth of CCDC's desire to push soldier interactions earlier in the development process, and it could eventually be used for other systems in development. “We're hoping that this is kind of an initial proof of concept that other programs can kind of leverage to enhance their programs as well,” May said. “This is a little bit of a pilot, but I think we can expect that across the C5ISR Center and other activities to spend and work a lot more in this virtual environment,” added Nabors. “It's a great mechanism for getting soldier feedback [and] provides us an opportunity to insert new capabilities where possible.” https://www.c4isrnet.com/artificial-intelligence/2020/11/09/mixed-reality-systems-can-bring-soldier-feedback-into-development-earlier-than-ever-before-heres-how-the-us-army-is-using-it/
August 5, 2021 | International, Aerospace

After latest flight test failure, US Air Force hopes to keep first hypersonic missile on track for production
The AGM-183A program still needs to complete booster and all-up round flight testing before the Air Force will approve production of the new hypersonic weapon.
August 1, 2018 | International, Naval

Navy Exercises Options For Additional Future Frigate Design Work
By: Ben Werner The Navy has exercised options adding several million dollars to the future guided-missile frigate (FFG(X)) conceptual design work being performed by five shipbuilders in contention for the final hull design. The Navy expects bids from the following shipbuilders – Austal USA, Huntington Ingalls Industries, General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, Lockheed Martin and Fincantieri Marinette Marine. A final request for proposal is expected in 2019, with the Navy planning to award a single source design and construction contract in 2020, according to the Navy. Ultimately, the Navy plans to build a fleet of 20 frigates Each company was awarded initial contracts of $15 million in February to start design work. The latest contract modification, announced Monday, sends between $6.4 million and $8 million in additional funding to each company to be used fleshing out their designs. “Each company is maturing their proposed ship design to meet the FFG(X) System Specification. The Conceptual Design effort will inform the final specifications that will be used for the Detail Design and Construction Request for Proposal that will deliver the required capability for FFG(X),” Alan Baribeau, a Naval Sea Systems Command spokesman, said in an email to USNI News. Each design for the future frigate competition is based on existing designs the shipbuilders are already producing. The Navy expects to spend between $800 million and $950 million on each hull, which will follow the Littoral Combat Ship. In terms of combat and communications systems, the Navy plans to use what is already deployed on LCS platforms. USNI News understands the new frigates will use the COMBATSS-21 Combat Management System, which uses software from the same common source library as the Aegis Combat System on large surface combatants. Missile systems for the frigate include the canister-launched over-the-horizon missile; the surface-to-surface Longbow Hellfire missile; the Mk53 Nulka decoy launching system and the Surface Electron Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block 2 program with SLQ-32(V)6. The ships would also require an unspecified number of vertical launch cells. The frigate design also is expected to include the SeaRAM anti-ship missile defense system and several undersea warfare tools. The complete list of companies awarded contract options on their respective contracts include: Austal USA LLC (Austal), Mobile, Alabama – $6,399,053; initial contract award – $14,999,969 General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, Bath, Maine – $7,950,000; initial contract award – $14,950,000 Huntington Ingalls Inc., Pascagoula, Mississippi – $7,997,406; initial contract award – $14,999,924 Lockheed Martin Inc., Baltimore, Maryland – $6,972,741; initial contract award – $14,999,889 Marinette Marine Corp., doing business as Fincantieri Marinette Marine, Marinette, Wisconsin – $7,982,991 initial contract award – $14,994,626 https://news.usni.org/2018/07/31/35430

All news

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.

On the same subject

After latest flight test failure, US Air Force hopes to keep first hypersonic missile on track for production The AGM-183A program still needs to complete booster and all-up round flight testing before the Air Force will approve production of the new hypersonic weapon.

After latest flight test failure, US Air Force hopes to keep first hypersonic missile on track for production
The AGM-183A program still needs to complete booster and all-up round flight testing before the Air Force will approve production of the new hypersonic weapon.