I'd just say if we went with this philosophy in the past, we wouldn't have F-15s, F-22s, F-35s, sidewinder missiles, etc. Good points, Sal, on the "divest to invest" crowd - you have to have something operationally proven to transition to before you divest assets...and then slowly divest below production to actually INCREASE your readiness.
But today all of that requires manpower...long pole in the tent at the moment. People first, then Hulls, then Systems. The last two take money, but the first is about culture.
All that money, and where is the variety in our own stock of loitering munitions? Why is the mk 48 not already a loitering munition? How about Tomahawk one step farther from TACTOM? Those are only some big money thoughts. Why don't we have one for a 40mm grenade launcher?
I love this post! Even if I don't know what ODTAAC means.
I was DSD when we were considering what to do about hypersonics. Only thing we knew for sure was that the Chinese and Russians were spending a buttload of money on them. Our testing had pettered with not a lot to show for it. And to make matters worse, sequestration had just hit and we didn't have enough money to keep the force we had ready, much less to buy a future transformed force.
However, the potential of the family of "electric weapons"--which include hypers, EMRG and lasers--was hard to walk away from. Having an infinite magazine of highly effective defenses could possibly enable naval maneuver against any A2/AD network (might also allow the Air Force to defend the air bases for their short-range fighters) So we decided to keep testing both tactical boost glide weapons like ARRW and hypersonic air breathers. Former for deep, highly defended targets such as counter space weapons and latter for campaigns. We set a do not exceed target of $2M per air breather (cost of a TLAM). The ARRW was furthest along in testing for TBGs. The DARPA HAWK was the air-breather we kept going. As it turned out, ARRW didn't make it. HAWK has done much better. It is now a program of record--the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM). 50% ain't bad in this business.
In the meantime, the Navy pulled the plug on the EMRG--a mistake, I'd say. And we continue to make modest progress on lasers.
So, the dream is not dead. But those who try to oversell a missile or a capability can make it into a nightmare.
Keep swinging, Sal. By my count, you are doing better than .500!
I was posting elsewhere this morning and my spellcheck suggested I use metric instead of the tired old standard. What bold effrontery. Got kind of miffed. I only use spellcheck because it is the hardest thing to proofread your own scribbles. I don't do metric. But I have to admit, it was genius in that USAF/Lockheed Martin graphic where they used "Mach 5 (6125km/h)" and "Range: 1600km" because as every Wall Street shill and statistician knows, Numbers Don't Lie.
How many desirable iterations have we now seen with the SM-6? Each iteration unpacks improvements that are highly desirable and we have an established supply chain (albeit the Aerojet side of the house needs work per Raytheon and those investments are coming). So is it the wonder weapon? No... but it appears to be a damn versatile one. And should energetics research produce the fruits that have been suggested, could eventually see even more range, bang & speed out of the same physical form factor in the critical near term before we are able to build out a hypersonics infrastructure. Does the SM-6 have the punch as a Tomahawk? No... but might argue that a greater certainty of a mission kill by a missile traveling at 1+ km/sec is none too shabby outcome either.
As always spot on. It is the right approach and litmus test(s) required. The corollary of this is when you find a break out technology that passes or exceeds the demands set forth: humble in approach (i.e. cost) hedge in tactical or strategic agility (capability) buy it, build it, and for the love of God streamline the acquisition. See https://transcend.aero/ - we missed it with this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqKOJElAEAQ&t=9s
So, we will forgo hypersonics until we can make them work. Good decision.
Now, the Chinese and Russians seem to have gotten hypersonics to work at least marginally well. What have WE come up with to counter those threats? If nothing, then how do we intend to replace our inevitable losses?
The graphic shows impact velocity of about Mach 20. If you work the math, at that speed a 200-kg solid impactor has an impact energy equivalent to about 2.25 tons of TNT.
Is it just me or does that seem like not much of a bang for what I'd have to assume would be a whole lot of bucks? I can see how it might be a good weapon for some targets -- aircraft carriers come to mind -- but without more knowledge of potential deployment doctrine, warhead dynamics, etc., it's hard to say it seems worth it.
What about terminal guidance at Mach 20? That ought to be a pretty technical problem.
Real issue relates to our "go along to get along" leadership. The OTD&E process has been corrupted for some time now which is how LCS, DDG-1000 and Firscout happened. Firescout FAILED its first half of operational test. A few weeks later it was declared operational without doing any weapons testing. So now we have an unmanned ASW platform that occasionally wanders off, and can't drop ordnance. That is why only one West Coast unit flies them, and no East Coast units. "Too big to fail" means we have LCS's tied to the pier, and hangars full of non-flying Firescouts.
I had the priviledge of escorting Arleigh Burke for a week when he was in his 80's. Very sharp and both strategically and tactically astute. I'm sure he's spinning 4500 rpm in his Annapolis grave ("A Sailor") over the state of his beloved Navy.
I'd just say if we went with this philosophy in the past, we wouldn't have F-15s, F-22s, F-35s, sidewinder missiles, etc. Good points, Sal, on the "divest to invest" crowd - you have to have something operationally proven to transition to before you divest assets...and then slowly divest below production to actually INCREASE your readiness.
But today all of that requires manpower...long pole in the tent at the moment. People first, then Hulls, then Systems. The last two take money, but the first is about culture.
Priorities aren't all about acquisition.
All that money, and where is the variety in our own stock of loitering munitions? Why is the mk 48 not already a loitering munition? How about Tomahawk one step farther from TACTOM? Those are only some big money thoughts. Why don't we have one for a 40mm grenade launcher?
Apparently no one selling hypersonic missiles doesn't understand how air defense works...
Gee, I'm sure this announcement bodes well for the hordes of hypersonic packing Zummwalts and Virginias we've been promised...
I love this post! Even if I don't know what ODTAAC means.
I was DSD when we were considering what to do about hypersonics. Only thing we knew for sure was that the Chinese and Russians were spending a buttload of money on them. Our testing had pettered with not a lot to show for it. And to make matters worse, sequestration had just hit and we didn't have enough money to keep the force we had ready, much less to buy a future transformed force.
However, the potential of the family of "electric weapons"--which include hypers, EMRG and lasers--was hard to walk away from. Having an infinite magazine of highly effective defenses could possibly enable naval maneuver against any A2/AD network (might also allow the Air Force to defend the air bases for their short-range fighters) So we decided to keep testing both tactical boost glide weapons like ARRW and hypersonic air breathers. Former for deep, highly defended targets such as counter space weapons and latter for campaigns. We set a do not exceed target of $2M per air breather (cost of a TLAM). The ARRW was furthest along in testing for TBGs. The DARPA HAWK was the air-breather we kept going. As it turned out, ARRW didn't make it. HAWK has done much better. It is now a program of record--the Hypersonic Attack Cruise Missile (HACM). 50% ain't bad in this business.
In the meantime, the Navy pulled the plug on the EMRG--a mistake, I'd say. And we continue to make modest progress on lasers.
So, the dream is not dead. But those who try to oversell a missile or a capability can make it into a nightmare.
Keep swinging, Sal. By my count, you are doing better than .500!
"Never show an Admiral (or now an SES) a shiny object".
OK, I never wore blue, but I was a pilot, am an ORSA type, and know how to either analyze or lie in a PPT slide. using Gnome thinking, please explain:
1. 1st stage accelerates to more than mach 5
2. getting to low level flight magic happens and?
3. we glide at speeds up to mach 20?
looks like we have a break-through in several areas of physics if, while unpowered, we accelerate from mach 5 to mach 20
I was posting elsewhere this morning and my spellcheck suggested I use metric instead of the tired old standard. What bold effrontery. Got kind of miffed. I only use spellcheck because it is the hardest thing to proofread your own scribbles. I don't do metric. But I have to admit, it was genius in that USAF/Lockheed Martin graphic where they used "Mach 5 (6125km/h)" and "Range: 1600km" because as every Wall Street shill and statistician knows, Numbers Don't Lie.
This: https://www.hemmings.com/stories/2019/09/05/fact-check-did-a-gm-president-really-tell-congress-whats-good-for-gm-is-good-for-america
How many desirable iterations have we now seen with the SM-6? Each iteration unpacks improvements that are highly desirable and we have an established supply chain (albeit the Aerojet side of the house needs work per Raytheon and those investments are coming). So is it the wonder weapon? No... but it appears to be a damn versatile one. And should energetics research produce the fruits that have been suggested, could eventually see even more range, bang & speed out of the same physical form factor in the critical near term before we are able to build out a hypersonics infrastructure. Does the SM-6 have the punch as a Tomahawk? No... but might argue that a greater certainty of a mission kill by a missile traveling at 1+ km/sec is none too shabby outcome either.
Dateline March 3 1967: Pete Knight flew 4520 mph (Mach 6.7) and over 320,000 ft in the very FIRST hypersonic vehicle known as the X-15.
And in 1968 we shut the program after "learning all there is" about hypersonic flight. One can only wonder where we would be today if only ...
I remember when placing MCM systems on Burkes would turn the ocean transparent and dedicated MCM vessels were no longer needed... (sigh*!)
As always spot on. It is the right approach and litmus test(s) required. The corollary of this is when you find a break out technology that passes or exceeds the demands set forth: humble in approach (i.e. cost) hedge in tactical or strategic agility (capability) buy it, build it, and for the love of God streamline the acquisition. See https://transcend.aero/ - we missed it with this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqKOJElAEAQ&t=9s
So, we will forgo hypersonics until we can make them work. Good decision.
Now, the Chinese and Russians seem to have gotten hypersonics to work at least marginally well. What have WE come up with to counter those threats? If nothing, then how do we intend to replace our inevitable losses?
The graphic shows impact velocity of about Mach 20. If you work the math, at that speed a 200-kg solid impactor has an impact energy equivalent to about 2.25 tons of TNT.
Is it just me or does that seem like not much of a bang for what I'd have to assume would be a whole lot of bucks? I can see how it might be a good weapon for some targets -- aircraft carriers come to mind -- but without more knowledge of potential deployment doctrine, warhead dynamics, etc., it's hard to say it seems worth it.
What about terminal guidance at Mach 20? That ought to be a pretty technical problem.
Real issue relates to our "go along to get along" leadership. The OTD&E process has been corrupted for some time now which is how LCS, DDG-1000 and Firscout happened. Firescout FAILED its first half of operational test. A few weeks later it was declared operational without doing any weapons testing. So now we have an unmanned ASW platform that occasionally wanders off, and can't drop ordnance. That is why only one West Coast unit flies them, and no East Coast units. "Too big to fail" means we have LCS's tied to the pier, and hangars full of non-flying Firescouts.
I had the priviledge of escorting Arleigh Burke for a week when he was in his 80's. Very sharp and both strategically and tactically astute. I'm sure he's spinning 4500 rpm in his Annapolis grave ("A Sailor") over the state of his beloved Navy.