The United States does not yet have hypersonic weapons, but the Pentagon is already calling for a decrease in its cost

_{The image is illustrative.}

The Pentagon wants to be able to purchase the latest weapons from manufacturers in volumes sufficient for defense needs. Therefore, in the United States, they thought about reducing the cost of hypersonic weapons.

Reportedly, such a statement was made by the US Deputy Secretary of Defense for Research Heidi Xu.

She believes that American manufacturers of hypersonic weapons must demonstrate significant progress in creating these types of weapons in order to make them more affordable for the United States defense budget. Therefore, they must reduce its cost, because now it is tens, or even hundreds of millions of dollars per unit.

This is despite the fact that in the United States there are still no hypersonic missiles that would pass all the necessary tests and would not be supplied to the armament of the American army.

According to Xu, if the Pentagon can buy a large number of hypersonic missiles, this will also positively affect their price, which should then be reduced.

It is noted that in the budget application for fiscal year 2022, the US military department submitted a request for funding for research in the field and hypersound in the amount of $ 3,8 billion. For comparison: this year "only" 600 million were spent on this item.

Thus, the situation in the United States is as follows: there is no hypersonic weapon yet, but the Pentagon is already calling for a reduction in its cost.

Earlier in the United States, tests of a hypersonic missile from a B-52 carrier failed. It was reported that first there were problems when separating the rocket from the carrier aircraft, and then there was evidence that the prototype rocket exploded at a relatively short distance from the bomber.

During the "Russian Energy Week", Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that the United States is significantly lagging behind Russia in the field of hypersonic weapons. He noted that the Russian Federation has managed to achieve superiority over the United States in the creation of many types of high-tech weapons.

Comments

[bar]

The United States does not yet have hypersonic weapons, but the Pentagon is already calling for a decrease in its cost

It is quite logical. The Pentagon knows better than others that the result will once again be dubious, and the scale of the budget cut is mind-boggling.

[paul3390]

Yes. It looks like they have already been given a preliminary price tag, from which even seasoned, well-worn Pentagon suppliers have been scared off .. I thought that after projects like the F-35, nothing would frighten them, but probably I was wrong ..

[dzvero]

they have already announced the preliminary price tag

Or maybe they guessed after the bill for cartoons and howled preventively.

[dorz]

The American project of a promising land-based hypersonic missile system Long Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) is approaching the beginning of flight tests. The first facilities of the experimental complex already transferred for testing the 5th battalion of the 3rd artillery regiment of the 17th field artillery brigade of the ground forces (base Lewis-McCord, Washington state).

The exact shape of the LRHW rocket has not yet been revealed. Moreover, the layout of its TPK is a rectangular product about 10 m long. Probably, the LRHW complex will use a promising All-Up-Round (AUR) missile with a Common-Hypersonic Glide Body (C-HGB) warhead. In fact, we are talking about a medium-range ballistic missile with a hypersonic gliding warhead firing range at the level of 2700 km.

[Sanichsan]

Quote: dorz

The American project of a promising land-based hypersonic missile system Long Range Hypersonic Weapon (LRHW) is approaching the beginning of flight tests.

great comment under the article that the rocket was never made
interesting what the calculations will teach? launching fictional missiles in conditions close to combat? But what if it’s as awkward with rockets as with a railgun or rounds for a zamvolt?

[bar]

And why be surprised if business is just starting and ending there? This is the usual striped market approach. If there is any need, they announce a tender for development, in which anyone participates, without any preliminary developments. Then the winner gets a bunch of dough, for which he starts designing from scratch, trying to compensate for the lack of competencies with the amount of dough. At best, they manage to create something for this heap of dough. This something is put into service, and the project is closed. Performers are no longer needed, thank you all, everyone is free. And each next project is carried out in the same way from scratch and by other performers. A striking example is space exploration. First, the breakthrough "lunar program" and Saturn-5. Then, practically from scratch, the project of "shuttles", then the purchase of our RD-180 and Elon Musk.
It is only in the USSR that specialized offices have been developing various topics for government salaries for decades, and Russia has the opportunity to use and develop previous long-term developments, not starting from scratch every time.
America is certainly a rich country, and the loot itself prints. But even for a bunch of dough, 9 women will not be able to give birth to a child in a month.

[Flanker692]

You have some kind of extremely superficial analysis. Almost every sentence is wrong. "They have a lot of dough, that's the only way they can, but in general they are incompetent." Mdaaa. You can't cook porridge with this approach. The separation from reality is simply cosmic.

[bar]

Well, tell us about your vision of the depth of this issue, I will read it with pleasure. And in support of my own reasoning, I will give an example of the same Nazi Germany in World War II, when a bunch of people who wanted to cut the budget without having experience in all sorts of ways tried to push through the most crazy projects of all kinds of wunderwaves. Hence all sorts of "big berts", "mouses", etc. The same capitalism, the same approach, when the loot wins everything.

[Flanker692]

"the most delusional projects of all kinds of wunderwaves" appear when there is no expert judgment, when a decision on each issue is made by a group of people or by a person, in your example, Hitler. If you want to quickly allocate money and / or justify your position, then the option becomes obvious to show the close-minded mustachioed boss at a personal show some miracle Yudo. This is how it works, it's not about the bubble, but about the principles of management.
As far as NASA's space programs are concerned, I don’t remember that. Both Saturn and Shuttle fulfilled their tasks, although they were made, as you say, "by anyone who has no preliminary experience." In fact, you told a lie. All selected contractors for these and many other programs had extensive experience in aviation and space projects, otherwise they do not win the competition. And what does it mean "to make the Shuttle practically from scratch"? How else to do it? The shuttles were created by the Rockwell / Boeing association - the most powerful companies, more precisely, their space divisions Space Division Rockwell International / Boeing Defense, Space & Security. For example, the first made as much as the command compartment of Apollo, the second the first stage of Saturn-5. The main contractor for solid fuel boosters was Thiokol - engines for various purposes literally for everyone! significant programs of NASA before, they also did the booster stage of the military Tridents. Etc. All this was managed by a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed - United Space Alliance. Lockheed Martin Space created ballistic missiles Polaris, Poseidon, the same Trident. Their Titan rockets delivered Gemeni ships into orbit, launched Vikings to Mars, sent Voyagers to Saturn, Jupiter and much more. Where are the vagrant seekers of the government dough here? Where? Nothing is done just like that from scratch! Nothing is done by other performers just like that!
The purchase of RD-180 for Atlas-5 has been discontinued (reported by NASA in August) and was carried out solely for budgetary reasons. This is a revolutionary engine in its time, but progress must go forward and it goes. The United Launch Alliance's BE-4 for Volcano features the same closed cycle with an oxidation gasifier + a completely new combination of methane and oxygen, which is recyclable and generally less problematic. The relative thrust to weight and momentum are identical to the RD-180, while the reusability allows the cost of a conventional kilonewton of thrust to be reduced from $ 6500. from RD-180 up to 130 dollars. And by the way, it is the reusability of SpaceX that allows NASA to save hundreds of millions on real launches of people, and not Fedorov robots with a drill and a pistol. The history of difficult, forced decisions always begins with denial and ends with acceptance. At first Rogozin called Mask a charlatan, but now money is being allocated to develop his reversible first stage and the development of the first kerosene stage of the super-heavy Yenisei is canceled in order to "start from scratch" to make a new (already old for Americans) stage with closed-cycle methane engines. The Roscosmos budget will be cut from next year due to insufficient efficiency, a third of the tasks set by the state program were not implemented on time. Roskosmos has no development of modern life support systems for future stations, no competence in reusability, lost experience in independent interplanetary programs of any, even the simplest level, everyone starts from scratch (Phobos-Grunt failure, elementary Luna-25). Philisophia "we are the Queen's grandchildren, who will quarrel with us will launch people into space on a trampoline" is absolutely wrecking.

[bar]

Quote from Flanker692

All selected contractors for these and many other programs had extensive experience in aviation and space projects,

Of course, all these contractors, as legal entities, had a lot of experience. But the tasks are solved by specific people who work in them. And over a period of time from one project to another, the teams change. And if research is not carried out continuously, but from case to case, from one state order to another, the design school and teams of specialists, as a rule, are not preserved, competences on specific projects are lost (I’m not telling you this from the ceiling, but based on personal experience). Moreover, even documentation on previous projects is often lost, because after their completion, no one needs it, just like the established team. As a result, upon winning the next tender, contractors "with extensive experience" create a new team and start practically from scratch. Hence the exorbitant cost of these projects, and the not guaranteed result of the work.
In the USSR and now in Russia, projects do not come from above in a directive manner, but are prepared from below by the developers themselves, many of whom have managed to preserve design schools, and who have been dealing with a specific topic for many years. And the implementation of projects is entrusted to these specialists, and not put up for a competition. And this is the fundamental difference in approaches. What it gives in real life is perfectly visible.

[Flanker692]

Moreover, even documentation on previous projects is often lost, because after their completion, no one needs it, just like the established team.

If the technology is no longer needed, then it is no longer needed by anyone. This is called progress.

As a result, upon winning the next tender, contractors "with extensive experience" create a new team and start practically from scratch. Hence the exorbitant cost of these projects, and the not guaranteed result of the work.

It was for the program of the Soviet Buran that the NGO Molniya was created.

And the implementation of projects is entrusted to these specialists, and not put up for competition. And this is the fundamental difference in approaches. What it gives in real life is perfectly visible.

I can not see.

[knn54]

"Cheap ribka - nasty yushka"

[A. Privalov]

Quote: bar

The United States does not yet have hypersonic weapons, but the Pentagon is already calling for a decrease in its cost

It is quite logical. The Pentagon knows better than others that the result will once again be dubious, and the scale of the budget cut is mind-boggling.

Naturally. They see what is already happening with the "partners" and are terribly afraid of the price increase for the "borscht set".

[75 Sergey]

That's right, the cheaper the better. Whatever is wrong?

[rocket757]

The United States does not yet have hypersonic weapons, but the Pentagon is already calling for a decrease in its cost

... Who would have doubted that it would be "the best", but also more expensive than everyone else!

[rotmistr60]

they must reduce its cost

That is not why the capitalists from the American military-industrial complex are working tirelessly to reduce the cost of their products. The more expensive, the better, including for generals lobbying for a particular firm, and the military budget, if anything, can be increased.

[tralflot1832]

Good weapons are never cheap! Then all sorts of modernization. And congressmen are not cheap.

[Nafanya from the sofa]

The Pentagon wants to be able to purchase the latest weapons from manufacturers in volumes sufficient for defense needs. Therefore, the United States began to think about reducing the cost of hypersonic weapons.

Not otherwise, someone in the Pentagon accidentally watched the old film "Sergeant Bilko"

[Adutant]

Biden's cartoons in reality ... Catch up and swallow the dust!

[Basarev]

Extremely pragmatic views. After all, if the hypersound remains golden, it may turn out that even a cruiser will not be a sufficiently weighty target for an attack. This has happened more than once: let us recall how NATO members in Afghanistan used a missile for hundreds of thousands of dollars against a pickup truck for thousands. So after all, you can go broke.