Go to hypersound! Details of the American LRHW Program

The United States continues to develop hypersonic weapons and from time to time publish new information about such projects. On August 7, the Pentagon held the next Symposium on Anti-Space and Missile Defense, during which new information about the project of the LRHW hypersonic complex was revealed. Some information about him was known before, and new information can significantly supplement the existing picture.



Slide from new LRHW presentation


Old and new data


In May this year, at the conference of the US Army Association, the recently created Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office (RCCTO) revealed some information about the promising HWS project. The Hypersonic Weapon Systems program proposes the creation of a missile system with a hypersonic warhead. Some information about the project was announced and interesting slides were shown.

A few days ago, at the next event, RCCTO management again spoke about hypersonic work. Statements sounded again and slides were shown. In this case, it was a complex called LRHW (Long Range Hypersonic Weapon - “Hypersonic weapon long range ").

At two events, images of promising weapons and auxiliary components of the HWS and LRHW complexes were demonstrated. A certain similarity suggests that we are talking about the same program.

Technical features


The LRHW missile system is being developed by several scientific and industrial organizations in the interests of the US Army. Moreover, for some components, the LRHW system should be unified with similar weapons for other military branches. Thus, the promising complex is part of a large interdepartmental program.

The LRHW complex is proposed to be made mobile; In total, his funds will be mounted on self-propelled chassis of production models. It is proposed to include one command post and four self-propelled launchers in the battery of such a complex. Probably the presence of a number of security tools.

LRHW fire control will be the standard command post of the US Army AFATDS version 7.0. The item is made on a car chassis and has a set of communication and control missile or artillery fire. Such systems are already used in the ground forces, which will simplify the operation of hypersonic weapons.

Launchers are developed on the basis of the corresponding products of the Patriot anti-aircraft complex. The modified M870 semi-trailer will receive fastenings for two transport and launch containers with missiles. Transportation of the trailer is assigned to the standard M983A4 tractor. In terms of mobility, the LRHW missile system should not differ from similar weapons of other classes.

In TPK on the launcher should be placed missiles with hypersonic military equipment. The use of a promising solid-fuel medium-range ballistic missile AUR (All-Up-Round) is proposed. In its head part there will be a planning hypersonic warhead of the type Common Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB).


May presentation slide


The missile and warhead are being developed as part of the collaboration of several organizations led by the Sandia National Laboratories of the Department of Energy. The AUR product is created in the interests of the ground forces and the naval forces. The combat unit C-HGB will have to go into service with the army, navy and air force. In the latter case, he will need a new carrier instead of an AUR rocket.

Thus, one battery of the LRHW complex will have eight missiles ready for launch. The performance characteristics of the complex and its main components are unknown. According to various estimates, the C-HGB combat unit will be able to reach speeds of 8-10 times the speed of sound. The flight range should exceed 4-5 thousand km.

Operating schedule


According to RCCTO reports in May, the next two years will be spent on completing the design of all LRHW elements and preparing for further tests. This stage will end at the beginning of the 2021 financial year, after which they will begin new work.

The first AUR test run with C-HGB is scheduled for Q1 2021 fg. - The last months of the 2020 calendar year. New firing will be carried out at intervals of several months. Obviously, between launches it is planned to conduct data analysis and refinement of structures. Tests should be completed at the end of the first quarter of fnx 2023

By the time the tests are completed, the Pentagon intends to deploy the first LRHW battery. She will have to carry out pilot combat duty. Then new similar units will appear. LRHW batteries will form part of Strategic Fires Battalion type compounds designed to complement existing strategic nuclear and non-nuclear forces.

Assumptions and Forecasts


The most interesting and important data on the LRHW project are not yet available. In this area, one has to rely on estimates and assumptions, which makes forecasting difficult. Nevertheless, it is necessary to pay attention to existing versions and try to predict the results of the appearance of a promising missile system.

First of all, the firing range of the C-HGB combat unit is unknown. There is a version according to which this product was created on the basis of the experimental aircraft AHW (Advanced Hypersonic Weapon), tested several years ago. This product developed a speed of the order of M = 8 and showed a range of up to 6800 km.

It follows that the C-HGB will be able to deliver a warhead to a range of at least 5 thousand km and will fly to the target at high speeds. Even taking into account the energy loss during the flight, the velocity in the final section of the trajectory will remain hypersonic. In addition, the unit will be able to maneuver throughout the flight.

How much these estimates correspond to the Pentagon’s real plans and the actual capabilities of the AUR and C-HGB products is a big question. However, even without this, it is obvious that the LRHW project offers a sufficiently sophisticated and dangerous weapon for striking at remote targets.

The LRHW complex can be attributed to systems of medium or intercontinental range. At the same time, it should show a small flying time and hit the target with high accuracy. Mobile chassis provides high flexibility.

It should be noted that the LRHW army complex is unified with systems for other military branches. This will allow creating and adopting new percussion weapons on different platforms with similar characteristics in less time and at lower cost.

Go to hypersound! Details of the American LRHW Program
Proposed Mode of Action LRHW


Thus, at the general concept level, the LRHW missile system is of great interest to any army, and in addition, is a serious threat to its probable enemy. Weapons with such characteristics can be used to solve a wide range of operational and strategic tasks within the framework of a massive first or retaliatory strike, and also, within the framework of the new proposed concepts, to engage single remote targets in a conflict of lower intensity.

Some conclusions


The main conclusion from the last News simple enough. The United States continues to work in the field of hypersonic technologies, and now we are talking about creating real weapons - first for the army, and then for the Navy and Air Force. After 2023, new missile systems can have a significant impact on the military-political situation in the world.

You can see that the development of the LRHW system with a range of about 5 thousand km started before the United States withdrew from the INF Treaty - albeit during the disputes surrounding it. This fact, if correctly interpreted, can be the basis for accusations of breach of contract. However, after recent events, the mismatch of new weapons of the INF Treaty is not a significant factor.

One of the tasks of the Strategic Fires Battalion compounds will be to participate in the strategic deterrence of potential US adversaries, among which Russia is present. As a result, our country must take into account the potential threat in the form of LRHW and other similar systems and take the necessary military-technical measures.

Our country already has hypersonic weapons, which in the near future will enter service. Accordingly, there should be developments to counteract similar systems of a potential adversary. With an optimistic development of events, Russian defenses will be on duty, at least not later than American means of attack.

In general, a very interesting situation is observed in the field of the LRHW project and other promising programs of the operational-strategic level. A new weapon with special capabilities has not even reached the stage of testing, but can already be regarded as a threat. Further work requires some time, and third countries should not waste it. The United States intends to adopt new hypersonic missile systems, and other countries need to pay attention to defenses against them.
Author:
Photos used:
Breakingdefense.com, Bmpd.livejournal.com
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

60 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Rwmos 13 August 2019 05: 57 New
    • 9
    • 10
    -1
    Since the time of the collapse of the USSR, I don’t remember at least one successful project for the American military-industrial complex, all the time some kind of crap came out. Like Zumvolt, who doesn’t shoot anything, or with a bluff case under the F-35 developed by Henry Ford, which is tadam! It is F-35 that is physically incapable of launching. And if they even bring the lactic catapult to the promised conditions - the F-35 from the aircraft carrier will fly to the BZ, showing the enemy figs instead of weapons - from the 11 elevators that serve to raise weapons - 2 are buggy, 9 generally stopped building, because they don’t understand what is in them must be changed so as not to be buggy ...
    So with hypersound it will be the same. Handles are only sharpened at the presentation of slides and commercials.
    1. Vasily Ponomarev 13 August 2019 06: 05 New
      • 4
      • 1
      +3
      why, guided ammunition, the same electro-catapults, work, but break, but how old are they, do you think the steam did not break, drones, b37 and still horseradish remember everything, you need to look?
      1. Rwmos 13 August 2019 06: 18 New
        • 4
        • 6
        -2
        This catapult cannot launch drones, it cannot launch the F-35, even the F-18 is fully loaded - it cannot, it does not break, it does not work stupidly! AND EVEN! IF!!! It will work when the cancer whistles on the mountain — it will be launched by unarmed aircraft — the nichrome lifts do not work either!
        1. Vasily Ponomarev 13 August 2019 06: 29 New
          • 5
          • 2
          +3
          but how then did she launch planes 700 times during tests, you are probably confusing something, watch the video, it works but breaks down quite often it is still dopped by a revolutionary solution
          1. Rwmos 13 August 2019 06: 31 New
            • 4
            • 7
            -3
            ... unarmed shitheads with difficulty kicked out. Armed - not pulling laughing As I wrote above. Can you read Russian? Read: the aircraft carrier is developed by a specialist for the F-35, while launching the F-35 is physically NOT ABLE !!!
            1. Vasily Ponomarev 13 August 2019 06: 37 New
              • 4
              • 1
              +3
              so the problem is not traction the problem is mechanical so that it works normally, when it works that way, it can lift everything that is intended for it. PS you probably never saw take-off from the catapult, they always take off like that
              1. Rwmos 13 August 2019 06: 42 New
                • 3
                • 6
                -3
                Can you talk nonsense? Launching F-35 WITH A STEAM OF Nimitz catapult, why the hell did you cram here, sick? To prove that Ford's electro-catacult can do this too? Nichrome not proved, update the training manual
                1. Vasily Ponomarev 13 August 2019 06: 49 New
                  • 4
                  • 1
                  +3
                  Yes, I'm sorry, I didn’t notice, I can’t find the news that they flew 700 times, and what didn’t suit you, I repeat the problem is not that it can’t drag, the problems are in stable operation
                  1. Rwmos 13 August 2019 06: 51 New
                    • 1
                    • 5
                    -4
                    Of course you can’t:
                    https://topwar.ru/158751-novye-avianoscy-vms-ssha-ne-mogut-zapuskat-palubnye-istrebiteli-f-35c.html
                    The U.S. Navy has a problem with the new nuclear aircraft carriers of the Gerald R. Ford class associated with inability to start from the ship of the latest fighters F-35Cwhich should form the basis of the wing. According to "RG" with reference to The Drive, the US Congress announced its intention to impose a ban on adopting the second aircraft carrier of this type to be built, if the problem is not solved.

                    It is noted that today the aircraft carrier is capable of carrying only F / A-18 Super Hornet and EA-19G Growler aircraft on board.
                    1. Vasily Ponomarev 13 August 2019 06: 58 New
                      • 4
                      • 0
                      +4
                      you read the text, that it can’t take off due to excessive load it’s nonsense here from the comments It’s hard to believe that the catapult was not checked for maximum weight yet on the shore, on the stand.

                      Hard to believe. Catapult was tested. And most likely she gave out wilted parameters - otherwise she would not have been mounted on the ship.
                      Three options: either an article from a grief-scribbler, or presented to us in the wrong way (in a free presentation, having thrown out all the original meaning), or the ship's power system does not give out the required power, and the catapult, therefore, “falls short”. Although the latter assumption is doubtful: Super Hornets from Ford flew, and their weight is comparable to the weight of Lightning

                      Interesting note: the referenced WG article is dated 2018. At least I did not find others.
                      In turn, the WG referred to the Task and Puprose portal, which published a revealing article about Ford, without forgetting about urinals)
                      1. Rwmos 13 August 2019 07: 10 New
                        • 2
                        • 5
                        -3
                        Of course - it's hard to believe! These are elves - they do not have jambs! It’s not they who accepted Zumvolt into service, and the third is already being completed, but the trouble is that this main alloy is completely unarmed! Not once has this naval raft fired anything - it cannot! There are no shells for guns at all, and he can carry missiles - on paper he can, but in practice - he did not shoot! They didn’t check on the shore that the shells for the gun are more expensive than the Tomahawks, huh?
                        So with the catapult, it’s so - nichrome it is not capable of fulfilling the declared tasks! What did not check on the shore? And what for - the budget is cut and everyone is happy! And the fact that, in addition to non-working catapults and non-working lifts, the resource of air finishers is also 20 times less than declared - who cares? Salvage has already been sawn! Commercials shot, noodles on donkey ears hung ...
                      2. Vasily Ponomarev 13 August 2019 07: 14 New
                        • 3
                        • 0
                        +3
                        whoa whoa, it’s easier, they really pumped them up with zomwalt, but they tested them on the ground with catapults, you need to pull it up, the main thing is that there is technology and everything else will solve the time, and in general you first claimed that it couldn’t even work and now we got to of what the armed f35 c cannot raise and by the way you did not comment on the news about 700 sorties from it
                      3. Rwmos 13 August 2019 07: 28 New
                        • 2
                        • 5
                        -3
                        Experienced, experienced ... But Trump purely because of the harmfulness said - "return the steam catapults," right? And so they all work, yeah ... Are there footage of electric cat-remote control tests on the shore with F-35? No ... Why? But because corruption ... The main thing is not to make a working unit, but to fuck up a sucker that he is a worker! Sucker is a defense ministry. Vparo successfully. Is this an isolated case? No:
                        Zumvolt
                        Henry Ford
                        F-22
                        F-35
                        The whole LCS program
                        Smart Grenade Launcher Project
                        Presidential Helicopter
                        and also a carriage with a small cart - everyone stepped up the defense ministry, and the nichrome from the above does not work, at least in that role, as stated! Nothing at all! Without sucker and life is bad
                      4. Vasily Ponomarev 13 August 2019 07: 49 New
                        • 4
                        • 0
                        +4
                        you know, of course you are right, these programs were executed for another, but if you think so, the STS program also failed, although it was grandiose, Trump is against it because emals are expensive and still require fine-tuning, but I found about ground tests
                      5. Rwmos 13 August 2019 07: 59 New
                        • 4
                        • 4
                        0
                        What can I say, they successfully lit the Ministry of Defense))) Interesting. and then she then could not launch these pepelats on board ... You know, it reminds one anecdote - I feel that I was pricked. but where - I can’t understand laughing
                        Although it’s a tradition to put pressure on the Syshyopy’s government for loot ... Won Mask also pushed SSh for the loot with Solar City - he built an island, such as powered by very green energy ... The dough was cut, it really turned out. that the generator produces energy in diesel fuel, and not solar panels with Panasonic batteries ... He was convicted by the court of Sy-Shy-Ya for fraud and without pauses he sent NASA to Falcon Heavy! Cut the dough. then it turned out that Falcon Heavy did not meet the declared characteristics and was close, but the loot was sheared and with a stone face declares that they asked, then they received lol
                      6. Vasily Ponomarev 13 August 2019 08: 33 New
                        • 5
                        • 1
                        +4
                        why falcon heavy does not meet the specifications? about traditions you know not from our country to say who breeds whom
                      7. Rwmos 13 August 2019 08: 44 New
                        • 2
                        • 6
                        -4
                        Because NASA refused it - and this is a FACT
                      8. Vasily Ponomarev 13 August 2019 09: 49 New
                        • 3
                        • 2
                        +1
                        this does not mean that it does not meet the characteristics, and NASA didn’t create it for themselves, they were given the air force for it
                      9. Rwmos 13 August 2019 17: 39 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        And why did they refuse it? For fun? No, it doesn’t match. On it, only teslamobiles run at random
                      10. Vasily Ponomarev 13 August 2019 18: 20 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        is the air force refused?
                      11. Infinity 13 August 2019 20: 10 New
                        • 1
                        • 0
                        +1
                        Did NASA want to use the Falcon Heavy? I follow the industry and do not remember that SpaceX created this launch vehicle by order of NASA. However, the agency can fully certify it for its programs, like the same Falcon 9, and which has already performed launches in the interests of NASA many times.

                        Rђ RІRѕS, military from Falcon Heavy not refused and are not going to refuse. For more recently, on 25 of June, FH launched several satellites in the interests of the Pentagon (+ many others as a minor PN). And now SpaceX two contract with the military to launch FH until 2021.
                      12. Rwmos 13 August 2019 20: 14 New
                        • 2
                        • 1
                        +1
                        Was NASA sponsored by Space X? Was Nasa considering Falcon Heavy as a rocket for the lunar program? Was NASA abandoning it? Attention, a question. so what did NASA give the money to the fraudster’s office (proved in a US court) Mask?
                      13. Infinity 13 August 2019 20: 38 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        What are your interesting sources of information ...
                        1) When and at what level did NASA review FH for the lunar program? For these purposes, Boeing (commissioned by NASA!) Has been creating the SLS since 2011 of the year. Yes, recently there was a proposal to launch the Orion spacecraft from commercial media (including FH), as a test launch in 2014 on Delta IV Heavy (ULA), but they abandoned the idea, because in its current form, the program is designed for SLS.
                        2) Once again. When did NASA give SpaceX a contract to create FH? Given that this was a private initiative of the company to enter a new market niche? Yes, SpaceX had the idea of ​​making manned launches on FH, but they refused in favor of a more ambitious project - BFR. NASA has given orders for Crew Dragon launches as part of CCDev, but Falcon 9 is used here.
                        3) I wonder if Musk is such a scammer, then why are the military and NASA buying launches? And on Falcon 9, and on FH? Why are startups bought by other private companies? Why, even Kazakhstan in the fall of that year chose SpaceX, although it would seem that there is Baikonur? And why all the satellites (certainly in recent years) are in orbits and enough customers?
                        3) Give a link to a court decision or news? I remember, on the contrary, SpaceX sued because of the tender. It's just interesting, maybe I really missed ...
                      14. Rwmos 13 August 2019 20: 46 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        * https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/22/solarcity-agrees-to-settle-government-fraud-claims/
                        "Solar City has agreed to a fraud charge from the US government."
                        https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-07-31/solarcity-booked-millions-phantom-revenue-created-bogus-accounts-ex-employee-claims
                        Ex-employee of Ilona Mask SolarCity, now a Tesla division, said the company fraudulently "received" millions of phantom dollars (which in reality were absent, but which were regularly reported to the tax authorities)

                        * because Musk is a political project designed for suckers. However, like any fraudster.
                        *
                        85% (eighty-five percent)! SpaceX funding is NASA’s money.
                        With such capitalization, Space X simply does not have a project not controlled by NASA.
                        https://newsland.com/user/804482197/content/ups-ilon-ne-genii-a-moshennik-85-finansirovaniia-spaxex-dengi-nasa/5444830
                        * https://lenta.ru/news/2018/02/09/fh/
                        US Air Force and NASA abandoned Falcon Heavy

                        Do not crawl fakes? Poor work ...
                      15. Infinity 13 August 2019 21: 03 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: RWMos
                        Solar City
                        And where does the Falcon Heavy? Yes, Mask has problems with Tesla (and SolarCity its division, it seems like I can’t say more precisely, since I'm interested in the space industry), no one argues. We are talking about SpaceX, which has a huge number of contracts (up to the 2022 year) and has developed good positive statistics.
                        Quote: RWMos
                        US Air Force and NASA abandoned Falcon Heavy
                        laughing You carefully read my message the first thing? Why are you citing 2018 of the year? I wonder what place they abandoned this pH if 25 June military satellites were launched from it?! And there are two confirmed startup contracts with FH!
                      16. Rwmos 13 August 2019 21: 09 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        * Moreover. that, as I wrote, it is proved in a US court that Musk is a fraudster.
                        * Positive statistics from Space X has been accumulated only because it is funded from the budget by 85%, that is, it is a completely budget production, or political project, which is one and the same.
                        We are confident that the SpaceX space fleet, consisting of Falcon Heavy and Starship, will be indispensable for accelerating NASA's plans for the moon and Mars.

                        (c) Elon Musk
                        Above is a link to the news of the Ribbon - NASA no longer considers Falcon Heavy as a rocket for the Moon, i.e. refused her.
                        Do not crawl fakes-2 ...
                        And the fact that Falcons do launch, with 10% load - 2.5 tons on average of 22 declared - this is a pure attempt to launder money spent from the budget. Starting an empty rocket is unprofitable a priori.
                      17. Infinity 13 August 2019 21: 29 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        Quote: RWMos
                        85% financed from the budget
                        Yes, only the link indicates that it is only Contracts.
                        as much as 85 percent of the company revenues to date have come from the space agency through its multibillion dollar commercial crew and cargo contracts.

                        Nobody argues that NASA is buying launches from SpaceX. But as if the contracts should be fulfilled, which is what is happening.
                        Quote: RWMos
                        Above is a link to the news of the Ribbon - NASA no longer considers Falcon Heavy as a rocket for the Moon, i.e. refused her.

                        All that I wrote in the second comment. About SLS and the idea of ​​using private media, which was abandoned. Sorry, you have not read. And then it makes sense to write something else to you? .. And where in the news was about the contract for the creation of FH?
                        And it’s not clear where exactly the military refused (at 2018) when in June this year they launched + bought the 2 launch. Maybe I do not understand the meaning of the word denial?
                      18. Rwmos 13 August 2019 21: 36 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Read, read. Fact times - see Mask quote. Falcon for the moon. Fact Two - SLS is now in its place. Falcon in flight.
                        Contracts, or not contracts, when 85% comes from the state budget - this is state financing. Point. Despite the fact that with this very state funding there are schools that clearly speak of corruption - with 85% funding, the Falcon missile is NOT SUITABLE for NASA's lunar program, although Space X was included in this program + unprofitable launches with 10% load ...
                        Corruption is such a thing ... We have a lack of profitability in state financing - that is, misuse of funds, that is, corruption. And the fact that at the same time the proceedings about the misappropriation of the budget were not initiated - it only says that the problem with the Space X political project is much deeper than a single fraud with the state budget. Systemic corruption.
                      19. Infinity 13 August 2019 21: 56 New
                        • 0
                        • 0
                        0
                        1) SLS was originally for the Moon, since it was created from 2011 of the year Boeing by order of NASA for these purposes, which I wrote about. And this is the main carrier of the Artemis program. Contracts for FH NASA did not. It was considered as an idea, along with Delta IV Heavy, which I also wrote about, but refused, since the entire program has already been prepared for SLS.
                        2) Following the logic, it turns out that NASA finances the entire aerospace industry in the United States and not only as it gives companies Contracts hi
                        3) For profitability is also a question. The first step is usually the most expensive, especially when it immediately 9 engines. Fuel yes, you need to take too much. But so and so on all LVs there is HRT, and the final cost of reserves is not so big. Kerosene and LOX are not gold. There are several specific calculations, and all are unofficial. There are positive, there are, as you said, negative. Well, the only official statement from SpaceX is up to 30% savings.

                        You know, since disputes can be endless, but it's better to wait for results from Linkspace. This Chinese company is creating a Falcon 9 clone with a similar step return system. Let's see what data they get.
                        By the way, the news was today afternoon (in fact, VO was a couple of days late, but oh well))).
                        https://topwar.ru/161209-v-kitae-uspeshno-ispytali-prototip-mnogorazovoj-rakety.html
                      20. Rwmos 13 August 2019 22: 30 New
                        • 0
                        • 2
                        -2
                        Here, by the way, it is necessary to keep in mind such a FACT that the United States does not excuse itself, that everything is not state-owned, and private is not so. There is a catch phrase "What is good for General Motors is good for America." And about the fact that in order to please Boeing or the General Electric, the US government is working - an unreasonable fact. Otherwise, how to name, for example, a ban on the rival of Boeing Airbus to a contract with Iraq for 15 billion? Squeezing out a competitor. The termination of the contract Iraq-Siemens for the repair of electrical networks, also 15 lard? "Iraq4 needs to remember that the United States shed its blood for them." And the contract was broken, having concluded it with J.E.
                        There is a lobby in the USA - this is how the state participates there. And this is pure corruption scheme, when the president was pushed out by specific firms. Obama is representative of the Lockheed lobby. Hi f-xnumx. Trump - Navy lobby. And with his arrival, the F-35 hayut on every corner, but they stopped scolding the LCS program.
                        These were examples.
                        And why are you surprised to learn that Musk is the same political project? With all its Space X, and again - NASA officially included Space X in the Lunar program. but nothing good, nothing has been done, what is it called?
                      21. Infinity 13 August 2019 22: 54 New
                        • 1
                        • 1
                        0
                        Quote: RWMos
                        And why are you surprised to learn that Musk is the same political project? With all its Space X, and again - NASA officially included Space X in the Lunar program. but nothing good, nothing has been done, what is it called?
                        Well, again around the bush ... NASA officially included SpaceX in Artemis only this year, and, like, a couple of months ago. Together with many other companies. What did she not do there? And the bet has been since 2011 of the year on SLS! The use of FH there, if even figured, it was only as an idea and then not so long ago. There were no contracts on this launch vehicle, no one owed anything to anyone!
                        And that’s all prisoners contracts are being implemented. The satellites are launched, the ISS under the COTS program has been supplied for several years ... Therefore, the company continues to receive new contracts and money along with them, and not only from NASA. And this trend does not change.
                      22. Rwmos 13 August 2019 23: 01 New
                        • 1
                        • 2
                        -1
                        So the mask is lying about the lunar fleet of Falcons? And about when someone was included there - to whom do the launch sites on Cape Canaverel belong? NASA? U-oops, yes. only this year they turned it on, and before it was clean, the tramps were clean ... Without contracts)))
                        And before there was a political project. Just now signed in the registry office. And if you get 85% of the money from NASA - it's ridiculous to nod at the remaining 15 and say - I'm not like that, I'm waiting for the tram. Although hey, how much will you give. This is a state-owned company and a political project.
  • 3danimal 14 August 2019 13: 44 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    What are you so worried about EMALS catapults and lifts? There are a dozen proven and working Nimitsevs who have no analogues, as they like to say now.
    There is experience in creating the world's first ATGM of the 3rd generation, an aircraft of the 5th generation (and an absolute record for their number). A lot of things, in general. Hatred is dangerous with bitter disappointment and considerable losses.
  • voyaka uh 14 August 2019 00: 25 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    There were 4 failure catapults for 500 starts.
    1. 3danimal 14 August 2019 14: 25 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      In a certain interpretation, these 4 failures are a complete fiasco. Anyway - they have "cut more than ours";)
      1. voyaka uh 14 August 2019 20: 20 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        For new technology, the failure rate is small.
        Steam catapults have also been debugged for many years.
        1. 3danimal 15 August 2019 08: 31 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I agree, but people who believe in overseas cuts and inferiority are difficult to convince. Yet it was invented by the Russians, they hid it from you)
  • NEXUS 13 August 2019 11: 44 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: RWMos
    Since the time of the collapse of the USSR, I don’t remember at least one successful project for the American military-industrial complex, all the time some kind of crap came out.

    Well do not tell ... for example, the Virginia submarine. Although this is one of the few successful mattress projects for the last 30 years.
    1. Rwmos 13 August 2019 21: 43 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Perhaps, yes, one of the few projects. Moreover, it actually took off only because it was not a breakthrough project, but a workhorse. But how they start to beat the tambourine about uberbaflu - wait for trouble. There will be commercials on the sea, but nifiga is no use, as with the Zumvolts. Well, they could not calculate on the shore how much the shell costs and how much - Tomahawk ?! No - they were busy. Pictures painted how Zumvolt shoots from a gun! Bottom line - 3 There are sows, no one has ever shot from anything - is that what? A barge or a warship, how was it taken without firing weapons? And here it will be the same - they have already begun advertising tantrum instead of real affairs
  • Mountain shooter 13 August 2019 06: 15 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    The conclusion is simple. Americans also know how to draw, and computer graphics are at their best. laughing
    Another conclusion. They took the hypersonic weapons of Russia seriously, and were puzzled ...
    1. Vasily Ponomarev 13 August 2019 06: 19 New
      • 2
      • 1
      +1
      they had experienced it before
      1. Mountain shooter 13 August 2019 06: 22 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
        they had experienced it before

        Yes, we experienced ... Only the noise around this was orders of magnitude less ...
        1. Vasily Ponomarev 13 August 2019 06: 26 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          maybe you just didn’t live then, so other developments seem somehow hidden, I recently watched the history of the 20th century by year (where the most important events of the year are), so it was the same as now
    2. 3danimal 14 August 2019 14: 15 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      There is no hypersonic weapon as such. A dagger is an option for ... not rich. OTR air based.
      Only Americans successfully tested the Scramjet, but no one has finished weapons at its base.
      Gliders are still in development. There are no finished products either. Here the United States, and China, and the Russian Federation. The competition is not easy.
  • KCA
    KCA 13 August 2019 06: 38 New
    • 2
    • 1
    +1
    The quasi-ballistic missiles with the turbojet engine are American hypersonic, and the quasi-ballistic “Dagger” is not hypersonic, because it is not scramjet, but turbojet engine, I don’t understand ...
    1. adept666 9 October 2019 10: 03 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      the quasi-ballistic “Dagger” is not hypersonic, because it is not scramjet, but turbojet engine, I don’t understand ...

      But I don’t understand what kind of mover is related to the concept of speed? Those. if this is not directly scramjet, then the speed of 10M is no longer hypersound? request
      1. KCA
        KCA 9 October 2019 10: 43 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        This is not what I came up with, this is our favorite:

        The Russian dagger aeroballistic missile is not hypersonic, because it does not use a ramjet engine - this was the conclusion made by American military expert Dave Majumdar.
        1. adept666 10 October 2019 07: 55 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          This conclusion was made by the American military expert Dave Majumdar.

          Ah ... now I understand smile
  • rocket757 13 August 2019 07: 43 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Assumptions and forecasts. The most interesting and important

    Some conclusions. The main conclusion from the last

    That's when there will be a TOTAL, we will see and discuss!
    No one is sleeping. Anyone who can, does what CAN!
  • igorbrsv 13 August 2019 08: 16 New
    • 0
    • 2
    -2
    Demons started am
  • Nikolaevich I 13 August 2019 09: 03 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Mdaaaa ... the Americans are revived and quickly take up the development of hypersonic missiles, and with a range of several hundred to several thousand kilometers, including and those that fall under the INF Treaty! And all this against the background of discussions in the Russian media that the treaty on limiting the INF Treaty of Russia is not profitable and Russia is doing the right thing, that it is announcing the termination of this treaty ... After some time, the weapon, the development of which the Americans undertake, will be completed and will go into service. Will Russia be safer then? Yes ... I "heard" that the United States was developing anyway ... and developing hypersonic weapons regardless of the INF Treaty and the treaty would not hinder them ... And yet ... while the treaty was in force, the United States had a constant headache how to "circumvent" the contract and so that it is as much as possible "sewn-covered"! With the termination of the INF Treaty, the United States has de jure untied hands ... and the United States will simply have hypersonic weapons earlier than it could appear “upon agreement” ... And time is a very valuable factor for the country's security! Or am I wrong? By the way, the development of "protection against hypersonic weapons" will require a lot of effort and money ... "Where is the money, Zin?"
  • Operator 13 August 2019 10: 23 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The C-HGB planning combat unit is a trifle, the main thing is the LRHW medium-range mobile ballistic missile with a range of up to 5,5 thousand km, designed for deployment on unpaved, sea and aircraft carriers, in the dimensions of an 40-foot container (~ 2x12 meters).

    The reincarnation of the MGM-134 Midgetman, however.
  • Valerik1337 13 August 2019 11: 28 New
    • 1
    • 7
    -6
    Conclusion - the USA lagged behind Russia by 10 years, at least
  • Old26 13 August 2019 13: 39 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    It can be noted that the development of the LRHW system with a range of about 5 thousand km started before the United States withdrew from the INF Treaty - although during the disputes surrounding it. This fact, if correctly interpreted, can be the basis for accusations of breach of contract.

    No, Cyril. This fact cannot be the basis for accusations of breach of contract. DEVELOPMENT is not prohibited according to the articles of the contract. Are forbidden testing, building and deployment. Similar work is probably underway with us. There was information about the creation of a new version of Iskander (let's call it Iskander-2). Is he also a violation of the contract, but on our part?

    Quote: RWMos
    This catapult cannot launch drones, it cannot launch the F-35, even the F-18 is fully loaded - it cannot, it does not break, it does not work stupidly! AND EVEN! IF!!! It will work when the cancer whistles on the mountain — it will be launched by unarmed aircraft — the nichrome lifts do not work either!

    Well, okay. This is American, so nothing works ....

    Quote: Vasily Ponomarev
    Three options: or an article from grief-scribbler

    The article is generally nameless.

    Quote: KCA
    The quasi-ballistic missiles with the turbojet engine are American hypersonic, and the quasi-ballistic “Dagger” is not hypersonic, because it is not scramjet, but turbojet engine, I don’t understand ...

    And you less listen to all sorts of IksperDov. Do not care what engine, do not care what kind of rocket, quasi-ballistic or aeroballistic. There are two options for the development of hypersonic weapons.
    The FIRST OPTION is a weapon with a ramjet hypersonic engine that not only accelerates to hypersonic speed, but also maintains this speed throughout the flight path. This is the so-called "motor" hypersound.
    SECOND OPTION - a weapon that is a ballistic missile (in principle, it doesn’t matter, with a liquid engine or solid propellant. This weapon belongs to the second category, the so-called “non-motorized” hypersound. Hypersonic speed is achieved when the fuel burns out, and then the rocket flies along a ballistic trajectory and gradually slows down. In the area of ​​the target, its speed may also be supersonic.
    The classic of hypersonic weapons is of course "motor" hypersound. He is called 100% hypersonic weapons. They began talking about the "non-motorized" hypersound the last couple of years after the Dagger demonstration, although many missiles had hypersonic speed. What can you do, trend.

    But American missiles, Dagger, and Iskander are all hypersonic missiles. Just do not call the "Dagger" and American missiles quasi-ballistic. They are aeroballistic. The quasi-ballistic missile is the Iskander. It has a flattened, not a classic ballistic trajectory. Quasiballistic missiles have their pros and cons

    So do not bother, comrade to the statements of "experts" that this is hyper, and this is not hyper. It’s like a test. A rocket is being created, which is called intercontinental. When tested, it starts at a range of 5600 km. All. All claims from the "partners" can not give a damn. Flew over 5500 km - ICBMs, did not fly - BMD. And what was there in this rocket, what kind of load and so on - this is the tenth matter. The fact is that more than 5500 flew by - that means the ICBM and did not violate the INF Treaty

    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    Mdaaaa ... the Americans are revived and quickly take up the development of hypersonic missiles, and with a range of several hundred to several thousand kilometers, including and those that fall under the INF Treaty! And all this against the background of discussions in the Russian media that the treaty on limiting the INF Treaty of Russia is not profitable and Russia is doing the right thing, that it is announcing the termination of this treaty ... After some time, the weapon, the development of which the Americans undertake, will be completed and will go into service. Will Russia be safer then? Yes ... I "heard" that the United States was developing anyway ... and developing hypersonic weapons regardless of the INF Treaty and the treaty would not hinder them ... And yet ... while the treaty was in force, the United States had a constant headache how to "circumvent" the contract and so that it is as much as possible "sewn-covered"! With the termination of the INF Treaty, the United States has de jure untied hands ... and the United States will simply have hypersonic weapons earlier than it could appear “upon agreement” ... And time is a very valuable factor for the country's security! Or am I wrong? By the way, the development of "protection against hypersonic weapons" will require a lot of effort and money ... "Where is the money, Zin?"

    And they, the namesake have been doing this for a long time, at least 20-25 years. We just had a presidential election speech with spectacular content. They usually did this "without noise and dust." They have their own achievements and their failures. what can you do, is the development of new things. Of course, they have more programs than ours. Moreover, they have such programs (and not one at a time) and the army, and the Air Force, and the Navy.
    They do not fall under the INF Treaty for two reasons.
    1. There is no contract for 11 days laughing
    2. Under the agreement under the INF Treaty DEVELOPMENT WAS NOT PROHIBITED. Testing, creation, and deployment were only prohibited. So that we and they were engaged in similar work, not bringing them to the level of testing

    Will Russia be safer? No it will not be understood. Weapons go to a different level of speeds. And this applies not only to Russia, but also to other countries. Now you have to learn will intercept targets reaching marching altitudes of 40-45 km at a speed of 6-8M. And to all. Someone will be easier, someone will have to start, if not from scratch, then almost from the beginning

    Quote: Valerik1337
    Conclusion - the USA lagged behind Russia by 10 years, at least

    Output. Do not jump to conclusions
    1. Nikolaevich I 14 August 2019 03: 32 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Conclusion - the USA lagged behind Russia by 10 years, at least

      Output. Do not jump to conclusions

      good You said it right! When I "hear" about the "enormous lag of the United States" to the "music" "URA!" , my physiognomy involuntarily assumes the expression: "I ate the lemon!" The fact that the United States has been engaged in “hypersound” for “20-25 years”, I am “on the verge” ... but it was basically, as you say, “motor hypersound”! And there is reason to believe that he will appear in the United States "not very soon"! In any case, they decided that "non-motor hypersound" a la rus can be created faster! Filed, called, an example! hi
  • The comment was deleted.
  • Old26 14 August 2019 09: 52 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    You said it right! When I "hear" about the "enormous lag of the United States" to the "music" "URA!" , my physiognomy involuntarily assumes the expression: "I ate the lemon!" The fact that the United States has been engaged in “hypersound” for “20-25 years”, I am “on the verge” ... but it was basically, as you say, “motor hypersound”! And there is reason to believe that he will appear in the United States "not very soon"! In any case, they decided that "non-motor hypersound" a la rus can be created faster! Filed, called, an example!

    The namesake, I absolutely agree with you regarding the "lemon", Me, then still a young specialist, my first boss taught. "No one forces you to love an adversary. But you must always treat him with respect, especially regarding his achievements." In our country, always, speaking of the enemy (in this case, the United States), they try to lower him below the baseboard. Before the war, they also believed that the German was weak, that he did not know how, that the Soviet "hawks" were the best, and "our tanks were fast." The fallacy of such a view cost us the lives of more than a quarter of our fellow citizens and a rollback to the banks of the Volga

    As for hypersound. Yes, all these years they were engaged in "motor" hypersound, because they believed that this option allows to realize the characteristics of the product to the maximum. This is primarily true for pointing accuracy. Secondly, the “echelon” hypersound was taken by the very echelon that has now fallen out of sight of the air defense systems. Up to the level of 30 km - we) I mean not only you and us, but also our opponents) we have anti-aircraft missiles with fragmentation warheads. Altitudes in the region of 60-100 km are already covered by missile defense systems. Our enemy has kinetic interceptors (we, like new versions of anti-ballistic missiles, will have the same warheads, since the fragmentation warhead is hardly effective in almost airless space.
    But the echelon of "motor" hypersound is about 40-45 km in height. For anti-aircraft missiles this is a lot, for anti-missiles like THAAD or Standart SM-3 it is not enough.

    As for the "non-motor" hypersound. The Americans began their work on this topic in the late 50s. There were repeated tests when a bomber was "shot" with a ballistic missile. However, at a range of 1000 or more kilometers, the accuracy of such missiles left much to be desired. Work covered up to better times. In principle, in the 80s there were only two ballistic, rather even aeroballistic missiles, which were in service. This is an American SRAM and our X-15. But these are short-range missiles. True, the speed was almost hypersonic (about 5M).
    Now a rocket with a range of 1000 or more kilometers can already be implemented with significantly smaller mass and dimensional characteristics.

    Yes, the Americans realized that they would get positive results in the field of “non-motor” hypersound earlier than in “motor” hypersound. In fact, there is nothing new and breakthrough there. Ballistic missile and carrier. Depending on the speed and altitude of the carrier, the same rocket can fly at different distances. At the same time, the Americans do not adapt ground-based missiles to air carriers (they simply do not have such missiles) but create new ones. And they get, for example, a 2-ton rocket, which, when launched from the B-52, flies 800 km. But the 2-tonka can be "Picked up" and not under the B-52. There is B-1B, there is F-15.
    So it’s not worth it to linger and hope that they are behind us forever. It is necessary to tighten control and analyze all their achievements in this area, in order to counter such threats if necessary ...
    1. Nikolaevich I 14 August 2019 10: 47 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Old26
      In fact, there is nothing new and breakthrough

      Well, I think that this is not entirely true ... yet they are going to get hold of the warhead, controlled and maneuvering in hypersound! And this, as the "techies" assure us, is a very difficult task! And yet ... Americans "want" to have hypersonic aeroballistic missiles not only air-based, but also ground-based ... and later, and sea ... But in general, I agree with your conclusions ... yes
  • 3danimal 14 August 2019 14: 22 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Our country does not have similar (LRWHS) models in service. The “Dagger” rocket was created in a relatively short time only because it is an aeroballistic modification (already in service) of the Iskander.
    Which develops hypersonic speed in a small central section of the trajectory (parabolic).
    The practice of recent years shows that only animated films about samples that are still in development (well, if 50% readiness) are quickly made.
    To complete the design and testing in a time comparable with American contractors, comparable costs are also required.
    Expensive devices and machines (a considerable part of which are imported and bought for currency).
    And the calculation that it will be possible to significantly save on the cheapness of Russian scientists is hardly justified. (Moreover, the best and most demanded will continue to “leak” abroad.).
    And since a lot depends on specialists and finances, there is no need to talk about comparable terms for development. Especially about finished products, which are in service, and the speed of their production.
    PS Direct competitors - 1 and 2 economies of the world, with an order of magnitude superior (15 and 10 times) budget.
  • Old26 14 August 2019 18: 10 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Quote: Nikolaevich I
    Quote: Old26
    In fact, there is nothing new and breakthrough

    Well, I think that this is not entirely true ... yet they are going to get hold of the warhead, controlled and maneuvering in hypersound! And this, as the "techies" assure us, is a very difficult task! And yet ... Americans "want" to have hypersonic aeroballistic missiles not only air-based, but also ground-based ... and later, and sea ... But in general, I agree with your conclusions ... yes

    This is an interesting question about a guided and maneuvering warhead, but so far this is only a Wishlist. The question still is that it is possible to make a controllable and maneuvering warhead. If you make it detachable. But then the question arises. And how much it will be controlled, the executive mechanisms of this management system and much more. It is one thing to make a guided warhead "falling" from a height of several hundred kilometers. Another is when the apogee will be a couple of hundred. There will be many problems, but will there be any sense in such a detachable maneuvering warhead ..

    Americans can want a lot, like us. But to be honest, I’ve never heard of land or sea-based aeroballistic missiles laughing Since the term "aeroballistic" means starting from an aircraft. Terrestrial can be quasi-ballistic, but there can also be its pros and cons
    1. Nikolaevich I 15 August 2019 02: 14 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: Old26
      Since the term "aeroballistic" means starting from an aircraft. Terrestrial can be quasi-ballistic, but there can also be its pros and cons

      Well, I recalled a certain article where the author explained that if a rocket (warhead) goes into space (airless space ...), then it flies along a ballistic trajectory and this is a ballistic missile ("impact" ("formation" of the trajectory ) Gravity ... on the space "site" ...). But a ballistic missile can fly along a low ("flat") trajectory without going out into airless space (space), and it is called an aeroballistic ... in some cases, the trajectory can be adjusted according to some parameter ("impact" force drag and gravity ...). In cases when the rocket is able to change the trajectory (!) Of flight, to maneuver in certain areas (section) within certain limits, it is already "turning" into a quasi-ballistic ... albeit in space, at least "where"!
      PS For some reason, I do not see messages about your answers ... miles sorry, if I do not answer on time.
  • The comment was deleted.