PREPARE TO LAUNCH
HYPERSONIC WEAPONS TWO TYPES OF
There are two basic types of hypersonic weapons: hypersonic cruise missiles and boost-glide weap- ons. LRHW is a boost-glide weapon.
A hypersonic cruise missile is normally launched from an aircraft and uses an air-breathing engine for thrust all the way to the target. In contrast, a boost-glide hypersonic weapon uses a missile booster stack to carry a hypersonic glide body above the atmosphere. The glide body is then released to follow a ballistic (arcing) trajectory until it enters the atmosphere, at which point it generates lift and levels out to glide at hypersonic speeds over a long distance to the target.
Part of the Army’s Long Range Fires Battalion in support of multidomain operations, LRHW is the Army’s contribution to joint hypersonic efforts to counter peer and near-peer adversary develop- ment and deployment of A2/AD strategies.
“Challenges were realized in several joint flight test attempts in 2023,” Farrell said. “Te Army and Navy teams worked with industry as quickly as possible to take the necessary corrective actions and return to the range for further testing.” Analysis and ground test activities are underway to mitigate risks associated with flight test events.
Currently, Farrell said, the LRHW is in the final stages of flight tests designed to collect required data, demonstrate capability and validate the system’s design. Following a successful end-to- end flight test, RCCTO will deliver the first LRHW missile and transition the LRHW capability to PEO MS, where the program will continue flight testing and further development.
According to a January/February 2022 Arms Control Associa- tion article, the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Office within the Office of the Secretary of Defense estimated that the Army’s LRHW program will cost $4.4 billion for development and $2.5 billion for production. With a plan for 66 missiles, including 48 tactical missiles, the cost of each LRHW missile comes to $106 million.
testing may be limited, proactive mitigation and adaptive strate- gies can offset setbacks, foster innovation and drive the program toward success.
According to Farrell, the LRHW program is executing an Army- directed development timeline that is much more aggressive than what is normally applied to weapon system development programs. In 2019, the system was originally planned to be deliv- ered within five years from initiation. However, unexpected snags prompted an extension. “Even with delays to work through these challenges, the current timeline is still faster than the normal 10- to 15-year development timeline,” he said. “Te target delivery for residual combat capability is [calendar year] 2024.”
Te Army planned for three flight tests of the LRHW before the first battery fielding in fiscal year 2023. In October 2021, the booster rocket carrying the CHGB vehicle reportedly failed a test flight, resulting in what defense officials characterized as a “no-test” because the CHGB had no chance to deploy. A June 2022 test of the entire LRHW missile also resulted in a no-test. In October 2022, DOD delayed a scheduled LRHW test to assess the root cause of the June 2022 no-test.
64 Army AL&T Magazine Summer 2024
FILLING THE MID-RANGE GAP While the LRHW incorporates a new missile, new launcher design and a new command and control design, the MRC takes two existing Navy missiles, normally fired from ships and subma- rines, and hosts them inside a road-mobile launch platform. A modified version of the Navy’s Vertical Launching System is housed within a 40-foot container on the trailer, allowing the Army to launch both types of Navy missiles—the Standard Missile 6 (SM-6) and the Tomahawk Land Attack Missile—from land, with MRC focusing on the ranges between the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) and LRHW.
With the dissolution of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty in 2019, which prohibited all U.S. and Soviet missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers, DOD and the Army began weighing options to fill the range gap. Te RCCTO initi- ated the Mid-Range Capability program in July 2020, in response to the Army’s 2020 Strategic Fires Study, which indicated the need for a fires capability at ranges between PrSM, which has a range of roughly 300 miles, and LRHW to engage adversary moving maritime, high-payoff and A2/AD threats in support of multidomain operations.
Te Army determined that using existing Navy missiles was the fastest way to meet this operational need (as stated in the fiscal year 2020 Strategic Fires Study). Te SM-6 (a fast, multipurpose
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148
