https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/4633841/daf-awards-arrw-production-contract-establishes-new-hypersonic-capabilities/>The Department of the Air Force awarded Lockheed Martin a $694 million contract for the production and fielding of the AGM-183A Air-Launched Rapid Response Weapon It's official, USAF is buying the AGM-183 ARRW for real now. There's also Increment 2 coming which will be an anti-ship variation.
>>65614638>$694 millionToo damn expensive for what it is cpable of.
Depend on the quantity odd trip fagAnd it will work too
did you know russia has mig-22's in S-P-A-C-E?
>>65614638A reminder that both Russia or China call their ballistic missiles hypersonics in a Potemkin village show.
>>65614638$10 says the Nork's sling one of their (verified) sanics off a Ik-28/H-6 before this sees use.
>>65616673hope kim sees this bro
>>65616644at the moment, only Chinese and US missiles are capable of hypersonic glide. that is, they can boost at >Mach 5 speed, manoeuvre at <Mach 5, aim itself at a target, and then accelerate and dive to over >Mach 5 at the targetso far as we know*, the US is not yet able to manoeuvre at >Mach 5, which is the next major speed goal*caveat emptor
>>65614638so what changes here from the previous missile, is it just better software or something, bigger engine maybe?
>>65616683>the US is not yet able to manoeuvre at Setting aside the telltale spelling, you have no idea what speeds American HGV can maneuver at.
>>65616693The missile in the OP is an HGV, they are much harder to intercept than ballistic missile due to their speed and relative low altitude.
>>65616706do we already know what kind of propelant, engine, navigation system,... its going to use?
>>65614638Lockmart out of the doghouse finally?
>>65616700what's wrong with spelling in the King's English?>you have no idea what speeds American HGV can maneuver atthere are lots of things we don't know, hence why again: CAVEAT. EMPTOR.officially however that's the next major milestone in hypersonic weapon capability R&D. aside from production and reliability and so on.
>>65616712None of that is public info yet.
>>65614638Mogged by blackbeard
>>65616683Got any actual proof China can do that? Seeing as we only have verifiable evidence that the US is capable of all you've stated starting in 1968 with the BGRV, Alpha Draco, Bold Orion, Skybolt, ASSET and PRIME programs, then onto the ABRES program with the MaRV, AMaRV, HPRV, SWERVE, Perishing II MaRV, HIFiRE 4, Falcon HTV-2, AHW, C-HGB, Talon-A and more I can't remember off the top of my head at this moment, Why would I believe the US can't do it but China can when they've shown literally zero capabilities of doing so?
>>65616744because China is adept at copying the stuff the US has been happily publishing openly for the last thirty years of the end of history, we can see visibly that they have grown by leaps and bounds in consumer electronics R&D during that time, they have lots of ballistic missiles, and it's not difficult to bolt wings and a guidance package on a warhead parked on the tip of a ballistic missile, and because the US Armed Forces have officially publicly notified Congress that China (and Russia) have probably deployed operational hypersonic glide-boost vehiclesno doubt there is a whole host of **caveats attached to all that, but on balance and on the record, this is where it stands
>>65616744p.s. the US has shown experimental capability, I never said they didn't. you think they could have trialled and deployed an operational system in less than a decade otherwise? i.e. Dark Eagle>Why would I believe the US can't do itbecause they only have one (1) operational HGV battery deployed right now?you understand the difference between having a few experimental vehicles; and a tested, integrated and operational weapons capability, yeah?
>>65616752None of this is being published, "caveat emptor" is not "I can lie".
>>65616728Blackbeard is bretty cool, too.
>>65616756>you understand the difference between having a few experimental vehicles; and a tested, integrated and operational weapons capability, yeah?so US have it and china just pretends they do? after all US have tested, inegrated and operational weapons while china only does propaganda mockups and expermiental shots.
>>65616712>do we already know what kind of propelant,Highly Loaded Grain (HLG) Solid Rocket Motor (SRM)>engineHLG-SRM>navigation systemIncrement 1 uses GPS and INS systems for navigation. Increment 2 being developed right now will use GPS, INS, and a new active radar seeker to hit moving objects.https://news.northropgrumman.com/hypersonics/northrop-grumman-advanced-hypersonic-technology-inertial-measurement-unit-soars-past-expectations-in-rocket-testhttps://gdmissionsystems.com/articles/2026/10/07/news-release-general-dynamics-first-hypersonic-flight-demo-gps-denied-receiver
>>65616752>and it's not difficult to bolt wings and a guidance package on a warhead parked on the tip of a ballistic missileleast deluded chinkbot
>>65616758>None of this is being publishedhttps://time.com/article/2026/08/19/higher-education-universities-china-research-defense-department-harvard-mit/>>65616771>US have tested, inegrated and operational weaponsonly one (1) battery consisting of two (2) launchers>while chinais officially assessed to have an operational capability, so you're wrong about that they>only does propaganda mockups and expermiental shots [sic]
>>65616728>>65616764Blackbeard is cool but it is like comparing a Hellfire to a Tomahawk.
>>65616772did they finaly figure how to get radio waves through the plasma cloud?
>>65616782>only one (1) battery consisting of two (2) launchersmore than enough for the targets it'd be used on>is officially assessed to have an operational capabilityyeah, operational capacity to do experimental-tier blind launches they do.
>>65616782Your article does not support your assertion.>>65616771>so US have it and china just pretends they do?Yes, infamous Chinese hypersonics like the YJ-20 are actually just ballistic missiles.
>65616791>more than enoughoh it's a troll>>65616793https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45811>Programs>China has conducted a number of successful tests of the DF-17, a medium-range ballistic missile specifically designed to launch hypersonic glide vehicles. U.S. intelligence analysts assess that the missile has a range of approximately 1,000 to 1,500 miles and is now fielded.130 Similarly, DOD has noted that the "long-range" DF-27 "likely has a [hypersonic glide vehicle] payload option as well as conventional land-attack, conventional anti-ship, and nuclear capabilities."131 China has also deployed the DF-41 ICBM, which could be modified to carry a conventional or nuclear hypersonic glide vehicle, according to a report by a U.S. congressional commission. The development of the DF-41 thus "significantly increases the [Chinese] rocket force's nuclear threat to the U.S. mainland," the report states.132>China has tested the DF-ZF hypersonic glide vehicle (previously referred to as the WU-14) at least nine times since 2014. U.S. defense officials have reportedly identified the range of the DF-ZF as approximately 1,200 miles and have stated that the vehicle may be capable of performing "extreme maneuvers" during flight.133 China reportedly fielded the DF-ZF in 2020.134 you are in "we have nothing to worry about, Jap pilots must suck because their eyes are too slitty"-tier denial
>>65616752>probablyMay I see them work?>>65616756>the US has shown experimental capability, I never said they didn't.Experimental capability, R&D, and testing are a prerequisite to producing a production system. China hasn't even shown their capabilities in experiment. That's the difference.you think they could have trialled and deployed an operational system in less than a decade otherwise? i.e. Dark Eagle>>Why would I believe the US can't do it>because they only have one (1) operational HGV battery deployed right now?What does that prove, exactly? HGVs are a niche system that is only used in 5% of scenarios in a war. They're extremely expensive to produce and field a system that actually works 90% of the time and does what you claim it is supposed to do (boost to mach 15+, maneuver at hypersonic speeds in both down and cross ranges, etc) reliably. Have a small warhead for the size of the booster needed to launch it, need large bombers to carry them, or larger land based TELs, or ships/subs. It also didn't help that the US has been in treaties with the USSR/Russia (INF treaty) that banned the US producing and fielding SRBMs, MRBMs, IRBMs with ranges of 500 - 5,500 kms which are needed to get the BGV/HGV to the hypersonic speeds they're supposed to function at... fucking retard.>you understand the difference between having a few experimental vehicles; and a tested, integrated and operational weapons capability, yeah?Yes, they all lead to the other, and show evidence that you're capable of doing what you claim as you've proven to be able to design, produce, and test all the technological components needed to produce an operational BGV/HGV...
>>65616812>China hasn't even shown their capabilities in experimentsee >>65616811https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R45811>Programs>China has conducted a number of successful tests of the DF-17, a medium-range ballistic missile specifically designed to launch hypersonic glide vehicles. U.S. intelligence analysts assess that the missile has a range of approximately 1,000 to 1,500 miles and is now fielded.130 Similarly, DOD has noted that the "long-range" DF-27 "likely has a [hypersonic glide vehicle] payload option as well as conventional land-attack, conventional anti-ship, and nuclear capabilities."131 China has also deployed the DF-41 ICBM, which could be modified to carry a conventional or nuclear hypersonic glide vehicle, according to a report by a U.S. congressional commission. The development of the DF-41 thus "significantly increases the [Chinese] rocket force's nuclear threat to the U.S. mainland," the report states.132>China has tested the DF-ZF hypersonic glide vehicle (previously referred to as the WU-14) at least nine times since 2014. U.S. defense officials have reportedly identified the range of the DF-ZF as approximately 1,200 miles and have stated that the vehicle may be capable of performing "extreme maneuvers" during flight.133 China reportedly fielded the DF-ZF in 2020.134 you are in "we have nothing to worry about, Jap pilots must suck because their eyes are too slitty"-tier denial
>>65616784Never really had that problem. It's not as simple as hypersonic = plasma. Most of the blackout problems were with mach 20+ vehicles coming from the moon, and were blunt body objects. Fuck it, I'll just copy/pasta what I wrote last time:It's highly dependent on altitude, shape, antenna location and power, TPS design, temperature, etc. Oxygen doesn't start dissociation until Mach 7-10, and nitrogen around Mach 13 at ~150k ft alt. Then shape comes into play, a sharp, wedge type design is going to have a smaller boundary layer which will have a thinner, weaker ion density meaning a weak plasma layer at velocities above Mach 10 and alts below 150k ft. Then you start getting into TPS materials ablating and off-gassing, adding ionized material into your boundary layer making a denser ion layer and a stronger plasma. Also, shaping as to allow "windows" in the boundary layer around your antenna where plasma won't affect your antenna uplink, or placing your antenna as far back as you can to get away from the worst ion conditions which are always up front. Then, frequency and power are another way to push through that plasma layer. Only blunt body objects like the space shuttle and Mercury/Gemini type return capsules really have to worry about plasma blocking out comms, and even then it's not for too long. There was no plasma sheath that enveloped the X-15 at Mach 6.7, the X-43A at Mach 7 and 9, and HTV-2 at Mach 20 causing comms blackouts.
>>65616811>>65616817I noticed you are avoiding that report stating Zircon is a hypersonic, almost like pointing out that it is taking Russian and Chinese claims at face value undermines your attempt to use it to support your claim.
>>65616811>>65616817>may be capable of>possibly>likely hasYeah, those aren't words of confidence and aren't proof of anything. May I see any of these systems maneuvering at hypersonic speeds or no, inbred shit colored mutant?
>>65614638This miracle has a 150 pound warhead with a 6600 pound launch weight. That thing is even smaller than a GMLRS warhead. On the other hand, range should be enormous since its ejected out of the carrier at something like mach 20.
>>65616793>infamous Chinese hypersonics like the YJ-20>infamousWhen has the YJ-20 been shown to be anything but a glorified ship launched ATACMS? I think we've seen a 4 second video of it launching from a ship to like 15kft and that's it.
>>65616836I noticed you are conflating Russian and Chinese capabilities, almost like pointing out that these are two technologically-disparate enemy nations would undermine your attempt to play on popular board opinion that Russia is technologically backward and thus by motte-and-bailey reasoning China is also technologically backwardI avoided discussion of Russian capabilities because the discussion is CHINA and I am merely presenting the official statements given relevant to China>>65616838>May I seeno, you don't get to see anything that isn't in public domain, commoner
>>65616846>I noticed you are conflating Russian and Chinese capabilitiesthey come from the same report that self-discredits itself by making already debunked claims(russia) and yet to be debunked claims(china) that are both just recitations of promotional material from their country of origin.
>>65616840>n the other hand, range should be enormous since its ejected out of the carrier at something like mach 20.Nav Warnings show like a 2,200 km range.https://x.com/NatSecLedger/status/2114871460019716584?s=20
>>65614638Remember like 2-3 years ago when the pajeets where mocking the US for not having any hypersonic missiles? Good times.
>>65616846>no, you don't get to see anything that isn't in public domain, commoneri guess entire PLA are commoners since they don't see anything that isn't published by US either
>>65616846>no, you don't get to see anything that isn't in public domain, commonerTypical behavior. All words, no action. Are you a chink or just an NPC shit colored mutant they gaslit to shill for them for free?
>>65616854TIL that > U.S. intelligence analysts assess that > DOD has noted that>according to a report by a U.S. congressional commission>U.S. defense officials have reportedly identified ... and have statedare all just>just recitations of promotional material from their country of origin.well we are lost then, if the US DOD's country of origin is China>self-discredits itself by making already debunked claims (russia)both US and non-US NATO sources have stated that Russian manoeuvring vehicles are right now complicating interceptions of attacks on Kyiv, a change from earlier in the warI know we've all been laughing about the Russian strike capability or lack thereof but the Oreshnik's problem was accuracy, not midcourse speed and manoeuvrability>>65616862leaving espionage aside, yes?if you discount all Chinese espionage, then yes the only view they have of US capabilities is what the US publishes too
>>65614638Is this technically a discarding sabot missile?
>>65616869Falling over yourself to avoid then given examples of the "report" being factually incorrect.
>>65616869Just like the missile gap? Just like the bomber gap? lol lmao even.
>>65616869>and manoeuvrabilitybecause cuckreshnik lacks any
>>65616869>Russian manoeuvring vehiclesactually Ukraine has jack shit to intercept any ballistics with ever since US stopped patriot shipments so they might as well maneuver as much as you do avoiding addressing criticism of the asspulled report you've latched onto and it'd make absolutely zero difference
>>65616907>anal sex out of nowherethis is a legitimate zigger right there, hoping to deflect to iran after sucking up to china didn;t work
>>65616919>Ukraine has jack shit to intercept any ballistics with ever since US stopped patriotPatriot useless at intercepting ballistic missle tough. Ask Saudis if you don't believe it.
>>65615333Must have been a hell of a smoooking accident.
So is everyone finally accepting that cruismissils are shit because they are so easy to intercept
>>65616683>the US is not yet able to manoeuvre at >Mach 5,wut? The US has been able to since the FALCON project in the mid-late 2000s. At least do some research before you spew out bullshit.
>>65614638so let me get this straight the damn thing almost failed on every testbut now that they changed a single word its better?
>>65616723>officially howeverMay we see this official source?
