US Hypersonics - Prompt Global Strike Capability

House panel wants details on CPGS confidence-building measures

April 28, 2016

The House Armed Services Committee wants the defense secretary to provide insight on measures it should take to ensure that adversaries do not mistake a Conventional Prompt Global Strike launch for a nuclear one.

The chairman's mark of the fiscal year 2017 defense policy bill calls on the defense secretary to provide a briefing to lawmakers by Dec. 15, 2016, describing "any reciprocal confidence-building measures (CBM) that are appropriate should the United States deploy a Conventional Prompt Global Strike capability." This CPGS capability is intended to strike anywhere in the world in under an hour using non-nuclear weapons.

The full committee passed the bill in the wee hours of April 28.

However, there is a concern that if the United States launches a CPGS weapon on a ballistic missile trajectory, other nations like Russia could incorrectly believe it was a nuclear weapon and reciprocate in kind.

The defense secretary, in his briefing, should lay out details on how the Pentagon would "address potential risks such as warhead ambiguity, destination ambiguity or survivability of strategic nuclear forces, and an assessment of whether the Department of Defense is concerned about these issues," according to the mark.

In addition, lawmakers want to know "whether measures such as reciprocal notifications of a launch of a CPGS weapon, reciprocal inspections, joint studies on the implications of CPGS capabilities for warhead ambiguity, destination ambiguity or survivability of strategic nuclear forces, and information exchanges on types of CPGS capabilities would be considered, and an explanation as to why or why not."

Lawmakers also seek details on whether other nations are developing similar capabilities, what implications that raises for detection and defense, and whether those countries are considering confidence building measures. The briefing should also look at whether these measures would "vary depending on the delivery vehicles (land- or sea-based), and flight path (i.e., boost-glide, ballistic or other)."

Warhead ambiguity has long been a concern connected to hypersonic weapons, which can fly more than five times the speed of sound and are intended to provide a long-range, rapid, precise capability for destroying high-risk targets that appear only briefly or are heavily guarded.

During a Dec. 8, 2015, House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee hearing, James Acton, co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, expressed concern that DOD hasn't "given adequate attention" to some risks, including whether U.S. adversaries can determine where the weapons are headed after launch. He said "destination ambiguity" -- created by the fact that boost glide CPGS weapons are highly maneuverable -- has to be considered.

"If one fires them say in the direction of Iran, Russia might not know whether that weapon was heading for Russia or Iran," Acton said at the time. "Or if one fired them at North Korea, then Russia or China for that matter might not know whether the target is Russia or China."

Acton noted that much of the discussion over these weapons has been "swallowed up" by the issue of warhead ambiguity that stemmed from the idea of placing these conventional weapons on ballistic missiles.

The Pentagon is seeking $181.3 million for the program in FY-17, up from the $78.8 million requested in FY-16. Lawmakers ultimately provided $88.8 million for the program last year.

The House Armed Services Committee increased the amount for CPGS by $5 million to $186.3 million for "examination of Army land-attack and anti-ship capability." However, a provision in the strategic forces subcommittee mark fences off 25 percent of all CPGS funds until senior defense leaders can provide details on whether such a program is a priority and if the proposed time table works
-----------------------------------------------------------
Just dust off the 2006 or 2008 NAP Report that goes through all these issues AND THEN build the biggest heavy lift CPGS missile that can fit in the Vandy silos. ;D

quellish said:

marauder2048 said:

If you're suggesting that MM III silos are hardened against kinetic energy penetrators we'd all like to hear about it; it was a growing concern in the 80's so something may have been done there.

Click to expand...

I am suggesting that an SS-18 is not a MM III, nor is there any reason to suspect they have similar silos.

Click to expand...

The SS-18 silos that DTRA examined in Kazakhstan (from which the Pk data is derived) were converted SS-9 silos.

They do appear to have thinner silo tube walls (at 0.1 m) than the MM III silos and look to have thinner silo doors as well.
But I don't have dimensional drawings for MM III silos to hand for a quick comparison.

Not sure I quite follow the very high level of concern being expressed about Russian or Chinese hypersonic weapons as conventionally armed first strike/ counter force weapons.

1.
They would have to take out all US silos (and sub bases, air bases, subs at sea, possible even planes in the air) not to face a full US nuclear retaliatory strike.

2.
Are these hypersonic weapons ICBM or bomber launched? You would have warning of either (though possibly less than previously)?

3.
Russia is certainly already capable of a limited counter-force first strike with little warning using close-in SSBN's and potentially cruise carrying bombers (perhaps China can do to). What exactly has changed fundamentally in this regard?

kaiserd said:

Not sure I quite follow the very high level of concern being expressed about Russian or Chinese hypersonic weapons as conventionally armed first strike/ counter force weapons.

1.
They would have to take out all US silos (and sub bases, air bases, subs at sea, possible even planes in the air) not to face a full US nuclear retaliatory strike.

2.
Are these hypersonic weapons ICBM or bomber launched? You would have warning of either (though possibly less than previously)?

3.
Russia is certainly already capable of a limited counter-force first strike with little warning using close-in SSBN's and potentially cruise carrying bombers (perhaps China can do to). What exactly has changed fundamentally in this regard?

Click to expand...

Ask yourself if the US would invite a nuclear attack if it's ICBMs were taken out by conventional weapons. Ask yourself if Russia or China has reason to actually believe it would happen. We should respond with nuclear weapons, and we have to make sure they KNOW we would, to avoid them miscalculating, but in my mind right now our biggest weakness is our credibility and will.

sferrin said:

kaiserd said:

Not sure I quite follow the very high level of concern being expressed about Russian or Chinese hypersonic weapons as conventionally armed first strike/ counter force weapons.

1.
They would have to take out all US silos (and sub bases, air bases, subs at sea, possible even planes in the air) not to face a full US nuclear retaliatory strike.

2.
Are these hypersonic weapons ICBM or bomber launched? You would have warning of either (though possibly less than previously)?

3.
Russia is certainly already capable of a limited counter-force first strike with little warning using close-in SSBN's and potentially cruise carrying bombers (perhaps China can do to). What exactly has changed fundamentally in this regard?

Click to expand...

Ask yourself if the US would invite a nuclear attack if it's ICBMs were taken out by conventional weapons. Ask yourself if Russia or China has reason to actually believe it would happen. We should respond with nuclear weapons, and we have to make sure they KNOW we would, to avoid them miscalculating, but in my mind right now our biggest weakness is our credibility and will.

Click to expand...

So indulging your line of reasoning wouldn't the logical response be to develop improved warning and defences against these hypersonic weapons rather than necessarily develop like-for-like equivalents?

kaiserd said:

So indulging your line of reasoning wouldn't the logical response be to develop improved warning and defences against these hypersonic weapons rather than necessarily develop like-for-like equivalents?

Click to expand...

You have to do both. One can't just let your technology base stagnate until you no longer have the know-how.

sferrin said:

You have to do both. One can't just let your technology base stagnate until you no longer have the know-how.

Click to expand...

Wait, I thought that technical know-how was eternal and could be resurrected at any time... /sarc

Offense and defensive technologies are necessary. Though, I suspect that Russia / China will go straight for nuclear tipped gliders, mainly to attack US missile defenses. US would get conventional gliders, because we're particular about nuclear weapons.

The real nasty problem about gliders is the warning time. ~10 minutes for land based radars.

(Though, strictly speaking, a nuclear glider is in some sense less destabilizing than a conventional one...)

DrRansom said:

The real nasty problem about gliders is the warning time. ~10 minutes for land based radars.

Click to expand...

Satellites. And with these gliders, hot as they are, I would not be at all surprised if DSP satellites could track them all the way from their silos.

sferrin said:

DrRansom said:

The real nasty problem about gliders is the warning time. ~10 minutes for land based radars.

Click to expand...

Satellites. And with these gliders, hot as they are, I would not be at all surprised if DSP satellites could track them all the way from their silos.

Click to expand...

The survivability of DSP satellites is something I worry about. If their sensors are as accurate as we think they are, then they would have a major conventional warfighting value. I wouldn't be surprised if there was a strategy to neutralize them in case of a high-tech conflict.

sferrin said:

DrRansom said:

The real nasty problem about gliders is the warning time. ~10 minutes for land based radars.

Click to expand...

Satellites. And with these gliders, hot as they are, I would not be at all surprised if DSP satellites could track them all the way from their silos.

Click to expand...

And some of the motivation for early warning is early discrimination which is unneeded for a glider as there is no "threat cloud" (debris, penaids, decoys etc.) to sift through.

..

DARPA aims to complete hypersonic demonstrations by 2020

May 12, 2016


The Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency could demonstrate technologies by 2020 that
would enable the future launch of hypersonic vehicles, according to the
agency's Tactical Boost Glide program manager.

DARPA teamed up
with the Air Force on the Tactical Boost Glide program in 2014 and plans to
conduct a flight demonstration to show the agency can mature technologies to an
appropriate level sometime before 2020, TBG program manager Peter Erbland told Inside
the Air Force during a May 11 DARPA demonstration day at the Pentagon. In a
boost-glide system, the payload separates from the rocket after it has
accelerated to a high speed, then the payload glides without power to its
destination, according to DARPA. The agency has a TBG effort with Raytheon and
Lockheed and has completed a preliminary design, Erbland said.

The technology
demonstration will explore vehicle concepts that can meet the required
aerodynamic performance for a wide operational envelope, as well as thermal
protection designs which can handle the extremely high heat imposed on the
vehicle during hypersonic flight.

"Essentially what
we're trying to do is mature the enabling technologies for this," Erbland said.
"Because we've never built anything like this before."

DARPA pivoted toward tactical range hypersonic weapons
following its attempt to create a long-range, boost-glide system on the Falcon
Hypersonic Test Vehicle 2. DARPA plans to leverage knowledge from HTV2, which provided
a similar problem as a boost-glide system, Erbland said. However, DARPA must
think about TBG differently as a tactical-range vehicle.

"Especially as you
think about air launch and being able to package it in a way that you could put
it on an aircraft and fly it," he said. "So it's that air-launch idea that
leads us to have to explore the design space."

Another hypersonic
effort from DARPA and the Air Force, the Hypersonic Air-Breathing Weapons
Concept, will follow a similar time line. Although DARPA and the Air Force
ended its X-51 hypersonic flight test demonstrator program after a final flight
in 2013, the program's lessons helped inform HAWC.

HAWC will
demonstrate technologies that could enable an air-launched, hypersonic cruise
missile and explore long-range strike capabilities, according to the agency.
DARPA plans to complete a demonstration by 2020, program manager Mark Gustafson
told ITAF May 11.

Like TBG, HAWC will
explore feasible vehicle configurations for hypersonic flight, thermal management
and affordable design. The demonstration will also examine hydrocarbon,
scramjet-powered propulsion to enable sustained hypersonic cruise.

"A lot of the work
that we've done previously was with hydrogen fuels to power a single
stage-to-orbit aircraft system," Gustafson said. "So while that's more
appropriate for an accelerator that's going into orbit, it's not necessarily
what you want to do for a weapon system. Hydrocarbon fuels have more energy per
unit volume, so you can pack them in a smaller space. So virtually all of our
tactical aircraft and weapons use hydrocarbon fuels, instead of something like
hydrogen."

DARPA could also
leverage HAWC technologies for future reusable hypersonic air platforms for
several applications, including space access and intelligence, surveillance and
reconnaissance missions.

Meanwhile, the
Aerospace Systems Directorate's High Speed Division of the Air Force Research
Laboratory released an April 5 notice for a May 10 pre-solicitation bidder's
conference for its upcoming Hypersonic Routine and Affordable Flight
Experimentation (HyRAX) program.

"The objective of
the HyRAX program is to design, build, and operate a reusable hypersonic test
bed vehicle to mature hypersonic technologies in aeromechanics, autonomous controls,
materials, propulsion, structures, and sub-systems," the notice states. "After
initial vehicle checkout flights, the HyRAX vehicles will be flown repeatedly
with different payloads each time. The HyRAX vehicles will be designed to
maximize the number of potential payloads and measurements that could be
flown."

AFRL aims to start
flying the test bed for extended durations within four years and support
ongoing flight tests for another five years, the notice states. AFRL expects to
release a broad agency announcement in October which would award at least two
contracts for a competitive Phase One of HyRAX. -- Leigh Giangreco

"By 2020 could. . ." so, no solid plans. No mention of the US Army's effort (guess they quit). I imagine by 2020 both Russia and China will have something actually in service instead of more powerpoints. Ah well.

sferrin said:

"By 2020 could. . ." so, no solid plans. No mention of the US Army's effort (guess they quit). I imagine by 2020 both Russia and China will have something actually in service instead of more powerpoints. Ah well.

Click to expand...

Too true.

". . . because we've never built anything like this before."

Honest to f**k?

sferrin said:

"By 2020 could. . ." so, no solid plans. No mention of the US Army's effort (guess they quit). I imagine by 2020 both Russia and China will have something actually in service instead of more powerpoints. Ah well.

Click to expand...

Tactical Boost Glide shouldn't take 4 years to build, it should be relatively fast, doubly so as the speed won't be that ambitious for a hypersonic weapon.

But this is the military, so caution is the rule.

Also, Russia and China will have operational hypersonic gliders before 2020. Nuclear tipped at first, but conventional strike shortly thereafter.

liaomh said:

Australia plans mach 20 scramjet in 2018 that can fly 120 miles in 30 seconds

Australia's DSTO has been doing hypersonic experiments in Woomera, South Australia and Norway. In 2018, it plans to launch a glider with an air-breathing scramjet engine that will cruise at hypersonic speeds to travel about 200 kilometres in 30 seconds (mach 20).

“Hypersonics research is not new; it’s been conducted for 30 or 40 years. But the way the DSTO conducts its work is quite different in terms of experimentation. So we are effectively taking an IT approach. These experimentations would not be possible without IT systems. The whole payload is instrumented with IT systems,” Zelinsky said.

Sensors attached to the air-breathing engine measure the aerodynamic and thermodynamic properties in real time, which is gathered and analysed for insight into how the DSTO should shape its next experiment and to progressively advance the technology each time.
“We use telemetry, which is radio communications, a little antenna dish tracking this vehicle as this 2-stage rocket goes up into space, turns around and comes back down. We are tracking and communicating all the time and getting the megabits of data that are associated with this platform.”

The 2-stage rocket is launched into low orbital space, up to about 250-350 kilometres above the Earth’s surface. Then it’s turned to the ‘angle of attack’ and brought back down to about 20-30 kilometres above the Earth’s surface to do the hypersonic experiment.

That height above the Earth’s surface is where density of air is right to sustain hypersonic propulsion and flight without burning up. The ‘angle of attack’ means carefully aligning the vehicle to its target, because it could end up somewhere else even if it’s a few degrees out, Zelnsky said.

“When it gets to the 20-30 kilometres above the Earth’s surface, we use gravity to accelerate the vehicle to hypersonic speed. What we are doing is we are shooting the vehicle up very high up in the Earth, turning it around and then it just starts accelerating through gravity to get to that Mach 5 to Mach 10 speeds.
For a scramjet, the kinetic energy of the freestream air entering the scramjet engine is large comparable to the energy released by the reaction of the oxygen content of the air with a fuel (say hydrogen). Thus the heat released from combustion at Mach 25 is around 10% of the total enthalpy of the working fluid. Depending on the fuel, the kinetic energy of the air and the potential combustion heat release will be equal at around Mach 8. Thus the design of a scramjet engine is as much about minimizing drag as maximizing thrust.

This high speed makes the control of the flow within the combustion chamber more difficult
Author: brian wang on 6/09/2015

http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/06/australia-plans-mach-20-scramjet-that.html

what the hell dose this guy talk about? a Scramjet cruise at mach 20?

Click to expand...

DARPA aims to complete hypersonic demonstrations by 2020

May 18, 2016 | Leigh Giangreco

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency could demonstrate technologies by 2020 that would enable the future launch of hypersonic vehicles, according to the agency's Tactical Boost Glide program manager.

DARPA teamed up with the Air Force on the Tactical Boost Glide program in 2014 and plans to conduct a flight demonstration to show the agency can mature technologies to an appropriate level sometime before 2020, TBG program manager Peter Erbland told Inside the Air Force during a May 11 DARPA demonstration day at the Pentagon. In a boost-glide system, the payload separates from the rocket after it has accelerated to a high speed, then the payload glides without power to its destination, according to DARPA. The agency has a TBG effort with Raytheon and Lockheed and has completed a preliminary design, Erbland said.

The technology demonstration will explore vehicle concepts that can meet the required aerodynamic performance for a wide operational envelope, as well as thermal protection designs which can handle the extremely high heat imposed on the vehicle during hypersonic flight.

"Essentially what we're trying to do is mature the enabling technologies for this," Erbland said. "Because we've never built anything like this before."

DARPA pivoted toward tactical range hypersonic weapons following its attempt to create a long-range, boost-glide system on the Falcon Hypersonic Test Vehicle 2. DARPA plans to leverage knowledge from HTV2, which provided a similar problem as a boost-glide system, Erbland said. However, DARPA must think about TBG differently as a tactical-range vehicle.

"Especially as you think about air launch and being able to package it in a way that you could put it on an aircraft and fly it," he said. "So it's that air-launch idea that leads us to have to explore the design space."

Another hypersonic effort from DARPA and the Air Force, the Hypersonic Air-Breathing Weapons Concept, will follow a similar time line. Although DARPA and the Air Force ended its X-51 hypersonic flight test demonstrator program after a final flight in 2013, the program's lessons helped inform HAWC.

HAWC will demonstrate technologies that could enable an air-launched, hypersonic cruise missile and explore long-range strike capabilities, according to the agency. DARPA plans to complete a demonstration by 2020, program manager Mark Gustafson told ITAF May 11.

Like TBG, HAWC will explore feasible vehicle configurations for hypersonic flight, thermal management and affordable design. The demonstration will also examine hydrocarbon, scramjet-powered propulsion to enable sustained hypersonic cruise.

"A lot of the work that we've done previously was with hydrogen fuels to power a single stage-to-orbit aircraft system," Gustafson said. "So while that's more appropriate for an accelerator that's going into orbit, it's not necessarily what you want to do for a weapon system. Hydrocarbon fuels have more energy per unit volume, so you can pack them in a smaller space. So virtually all of our tactical aircraft and weapons use hydrocarbon fuels, instead of something like hydrogen."

DARPA could also leverage HAWC technologies for future reusable hypersonic air platforms for several applications, including space access and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions.

Meanwhile, the Aerospace Systems Directorate's High Speed Division of the Air Force Research Laboratory released an April 5 notice for a May 10 pre-solicitation bidder's conference for its upcoming Hypersonic Routine and Affordable Flight Experimentation (HyRAX) program.

"The objective of the HyRAX program is to design, build, and operate a reusable hypersonic test bed vehicle to mature hypersonic technologies in aeromechanics, autonomous controls, materials, propulsion, structures, and sub-systems," the notice states. "After initial vehicle checkout flights, the HyRAX vehicles will be flown repeatedly with different payloads each time. The HyRAX vehicles will be designed to maximize the number of potential payloads and measurements that could be flown."

AFRL aims to start flying the test bed for extended durations within four years and support ongoing flight tests for another five years, the notice states. AFRL expects to release a broad agency announcement in October which would award at least two contracts for a competitive Phase One of HyRAX.

Should be one of the most robustly funded areas of future defense technology

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?List=7c996cd7%2Dcbb4%2D4018%2Dbaf8%2D8825eada7aa2&ID=2187

bring_it_on said:

DARPA aims to complete hypersonic demonstrations by 2020

Click to expand...

Demos huh? Isn't that what HyFly, X-51, X-43, and HiFire have been? (Among others.) I'll bet China and Russia have something well into service by then, with India close behind. And they all started from behind. Sorry Lucy, I'm not trying to kick that football anymore.

From the AW&ST Archives December 19, 1966

Solid Booster Sought for Bomb Delivery - Ah the good old days could you imagine lofting three MOABs at a target. I'd call it the SCSIK (South China Sea Island Killer)

sferrin said:

I'll bet China and Russia have something well into service by then

Click to expand...

By the definitions of "in service" used on the internet and Russian propaganda news outlets, Russia and China have almost everything in service, and always have everything "in service" many years before the US. Having published a pamphlet with an idea, or having announced "a test", is sufficient for most people to claim it is in service. Except, not.

When the headline should read Senate triples budget for CPGS demands weapons ready for deployment as soon as possible instead we get this:

Senate appropriators slash Pentagon's CPGS funding request, creating conference issue

May 27, 2016


Senate appropriators have slashed the Pentagon's budget request for the Conventional Prompt Global Strike program, creating a potential conference issue with the House.

The fiscal year 2017 defense spending bill the Senate Appropriations Committee approved May 26 seeks to provide $101.3 million for the CPGS program. This is an $80 million cut from the amount the Pentagon requested for the program intended to strike targets anywhere in the world in under an hour using non-nuclear weapons.

The report accompanying the FY-17 bill notes that the cut is intended to "maintain program affordability" and "rephase due to schedule slip."

The decrease in funding sets up a conference issue with House appropriators, who provided the $181.3 million amount requested by the Defense Department.

With the goal of testing CPGS, the Pentagon has more than doubled spending for the program, seeking $181.3 million in FY-17, up from the $78.8 million requested in FY-16. Lawmakers ultimately provided $88.8 million for the program in FY-16.

A majority of the proposed FY-17 spending -- $174 million -- is slated to go to a subprogram that will "test and evaluate alternative booster and delivery vehicle options and will assess the feasibility of producing an affordable solution to fill the CPGS capability gap," according to DOD budget justification materials.

Plans for the coming fiscal year include finalizing the building and testing of the hypersonic glide body and booster to be used in "flight experiment 1," budget justification documents state. The Pentagon is also looking toward "flight experiment 2," slated to take place in FY-19.

Senate appropriators note that they support DOD's efforts to develop and demonstrate CPGS technologies.

"The committee is aware of ongoing test review efforts and understands that the Department of Defense plans to complete additional testing in the near term," the report states, adding that Congress has appropriated nearly $1.1 billion for the program through FY-16.

The committee also notes that, despite the cut, it is still calling for an increase of $12.6 million for FY-17 above the amount enacted for FY-16.

"The committee encourages the Department of Defense to maintain the currently programmed funding profile of $881,620,000 from fiscal years 2018 through 2020, given the strategic importance of the program, and urges the Department of Defense to finalize manufacturing and testing of the hypersonic glide body and booster," the report states.

Hypersonic weapons, which can fly more than five times the speed of sound, are intended to provide a long-range, rapid, precise capability for destroying high-risk targets that appear only briefly or are heavily guarded. Such weapons would evade enemy defenses in anti-access and area-denial threat environments.

Our government is our own worst enemy. I mean seriously? Both Russia and China (and India) are leap-frogging ahead, and ALREADY HAVE conventional ballistic missiles, many of them terminally guided, and Congress' ingenious answer to that is to chop funding to the last flickering flame of our effort? Absolutely brilliant.

HiFire HF4 sounds interesting though (From this weeks AvWeek):

"“It is too soon to know anything about the data, but the U.S. Air Force was very happy,” says Michael Smart, chair of hypersonic propulsion at UQ. The Air Force, which was the lead on flight 5B, “got a full dataset,” he adds.

Upcoming flights for the HIFiRE program include HF4, HF6 and HF7. The HF4 flight will test two back-to-back hypersonic gliders enclosed in the same payload shroud. Test objectives include controlling the waverider vehicles through a “pull-up” maneuver, validating the ability to safely separate and control the two fliers exoatmospherically. Made from aluminum with a copper leading edge, the two fliers will head in different directions immediately after separation. One of the fliers will perform a 25-deg. pull-up while the other will pull up to the horizontal and may be brought in for a possible crash landing. This flight is currently planned for early 2017.
"

Senate panel seeks milestone A decision, integrated master plan for CPGS

May 26, 2016


Senate authorizers want the Defense Department to make a milestone A decision for the Conventional Prompt Global Strike program, which is designed to strike a target anywhere in the world in under an hour using non-nuclear weapons, and provide more details on any potential issues that could delay the future program of record.

In its fiscal year 2017 defense policy bill, the Senate Armed Services Committee calls on the defense secretary "to make a milestone A decision for Conventional Prompt Global Strike no later than Sept. 30, 2020, or eight months after the successful completion of the intermediate range flight 2 test," according to the report accompanying the bill.

In addition, the lawmakers note that "as the CPGS activity continues working toward a milestone development decision, the committee would like to understand factors that may delay the Initial Operational Capability of a future program of record, as well as considerations regarding a Limited Operational Capability across the military services," according to the report.

Therefore, the defense secretary should develop a CPGS integrated master plan for the program, the Senate authorizers write.

This integrated master plan should detail the "research and development activities including the Army, Navy and Air Force, as the secretary determines appropriate, which enable an operational CPGS capability," according to the Senate report. In addition, the defense secretary should provide a report on this plan to lawmakers by Jan. 1, 2017.

"The report should include a description of the coordination and collaboration among the various agencies working hypersonic activities in support of the CPGS capability and must identify high risk areas associated with long lead items or technologies that could be mitigated prior to a major milestone development decision, including the need for adequate test facility infrastructure," Senate authorizers write. "The report shall also address whether there are warfighter requirements or integrated priorities lists-submitted needs for a limited Conventional Prompt Global Strike capability and options across the military services for supporting such requirements or integrated priorities lists submissions."

With the goal of testing CPGS, the Pentagon has more than doubled spending for the program, seeking $181.3 million in FY-17, up from the $78.8 million requested in FY-16. Lawmakers ultimately provided $88.8 million for the program.

A majority of the proposed FY-17 spending -- $174 million -- is slated to go to a subprogram that will "test and evaluate alternative booster and delivery vehicle options and will assess the feasibility of producing an affordable solution to fill the CPGS capability gap," according to budget justification materials.

Plans for the coming fiscal year include finalizing the building and testing of the hypersonic glide body and booster to be used in "flight experiment 1," budget justification documents state. The Pentagon is also looking toward "flight experiment 2," slated to take place in FY-19.

Hypersonic weapons, which can fly more than five times the speed of sound, are intended to provide a long-range, rapid, precise capability for destroying high-risk targets that appear only briefly or are heavily guarded. Such weapons would evade enemy defenses in anti-access and area-denial threat environments.

Senate authorizers note that they are "encouraged by the Department of Defense's commitment to the Conventional Prompt Global Strike activity shown in the fiscal year 2017 budget submission" and that the FY-17 request seeks to "substantially increase" DOD's investment in the program.

"The committee looks forward to the successful execution of the upcoming Navy Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Strike (IRCPS) flight experiment, and to working closely with the department to prioritize continued development of the materials and technologies required to support near-term operational system development efforts," according to the Senate report.

The Senate Armed Services Committee provided the amount requested for the program. The House Armed Services Committee increased the amount for CPGS by $5 million to $186.3 million for "examination of Army land-attack and anti-ship capability," according to the House bill. This difference will have to be resolved during the conference process.

However, a provision in the House bill fences off 25 percent of all CPGS funds until senior defense leaders can provide details on whether such a program is a priority and if the proposed time table works. The full House passed the bill on May 18.

The House Armed Services Committee also wants the defense secretary to provide insight on measures it should take to ensure that adversaries do not mistake a Conventional Prompt Global Strike launch for a nuclear one.

Senate report highlights need for sustained hypersonic testing capabilities


Senate authorizers proposed funding in their mark of the fiscal year 2017 defense policy bill to support key hypersonics testing facilities, pointing to a larger effort to maintain critical test infrastructure and accelerate hypersonic weapons development.

In the report, the Senate Armed Services Committee noted the president's FY-17 request to boost funding for hypersonics, a core element of the defense department's third offset strategy designed to assert American military superiority.

The Air Force returned to its hypersonic weapons effort with modest increases in its FY-17 budget request, after reducing funding for hypersonics in FY-15 and FY-16. The service's Aerospace Technology High Speed/Hypersonic Integration and Demonstration program also saw a dramatic shift in funding this year. In its FY-16 request, the Air Force had budgeted $32.3 million for the program in FY-17. But this year's budget proposal boosted that request to $92.8 million, due to an increased emphasis in hypersonics, budget documents state.

The committee also plucked language from a March report on hypersonics from the Mitchell Institute for National Security, which argued the Defense Department should support continued operation and upgrades of its hypersonic infrastructure, including ground-based and full-flight research facilities. The Senate committee recommended DOD work through the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Test Resource Management Center, and the Air Force to explore continued development of wind tunnel test capabilities to support development of hypersonic military systems.

While support for the wind tunnel infrastructure from Congress could indicate increasing support for hypersonics weapons research, the venture has been marked by stop-and-start funding for at least three decades. That erratic funding has neglected critical infrastructure supporting hypersonics, such as the wind tunnels, and allowed project teams with institutional knowledge to dissipate. The Mitchell Institute highlighted critical hypersonic test facilities in its report, including the Air Force's Hypervelocity Wind Tunnel Nine at White Oak, MD, NASA's Eight-Foot High Temperature Tunnel at Langley Research Center, VA, and several wind tunnels and ground testing facilities located at Arnold Engineering Development Complex at Arnold Air Force, TN.

"These national assets are periodically endangered by shortsighted policies which measure facility worth based on hourly usage rates rather than provision of critical test and development knowledge," the Mitchell Institute report states. "This approach requires facilities to be paid for by the programs using them, thus driving the program costs up sharply, driving program customers away, and increasing the cost per remaining customer, resulting in a budgetary 'death spiral.'"

Mark Lewis is a former chief scientist of the Air Force and current director of the science and technology policy institute, a National Science Foundation sponsored research center which advises the White House on science policy. In a May 27 interview with Inside the Air Force, Lewis echoed the Mitchell Institute's concerns over using an hourly usage rate to measure a wind tunnel's utility. By their nature, a hypersonic wind tunnel generally tests for short periods of time, he said. At Tunnel Nine in White Oak, MD a long test could last 10 seconds.

"If you decide to value your wind tunnels on the metric of how many hours you test it, obviously the high-speed wind tunnel is not going to fare well. So it's a bad metric," he said. "What you really need to do is look at how that wind tunnel factors into a critical aspect of the flight physics you need to explore."

Without a steady flow of funding, almost all of the government's hypersonic testing facilities are at risk, Lewis said. Although the Air Force has consistently upgraded Tunnel Nine since the service built the facility in 1976, varied budgets have allowed other wind tunnels to languish. In 2007, NASA mothballed its hypersonic wind tunnel at its Glenn Research Center Plum Brook Station facility in Ohio and the agency's Eight-Foot Tunnel at Langley requires maintenance work, Lewis said.

"There's a lot of wear and tear that goes into a tunnel exposed to such enormous forces and temperatures," he said. "So parts can start to fail and you look at the lifetime of parts on tunnels and you start to worry, 'have I been changing out parts that have been likely to fail? Have I been refurbishing things that are likely to fail?' And when the budget's being cut it's harder to do that."

The department's FY-17 budget request seems to give enough support for hypersonics test infrastructure though, Lewis said. That funding should focus first on maintaining important facilities today and then updating them, he said. Although some wind tunnels date back to the 1970s, the parts do not necessarily become obsolete, he said. Instead, recent updates in wind tunnel technology have focused on sensors inside the wind tunnel, which costs less to update. The basic structure of the wind tunnel has not changed, but new technologies such as a temperature sensitive paint used at Tunnel Nine have opened up capabilities that were not available a decade ago.

"The Air Force is investing in new instrumentation, so that's kind of the good news," Lewis said.

Still, Lewis worries that a large number of hypersonic experts retiring today combined with a narrow field of researchers could mean a dwindling knowledge base for hypersonics.

"One area that I worry about the most, it's not necessarily the wind tunnels themselves, it's the people who operate the wind tunnels," he said. "It takes a very specialized skill set to know how to run a hypersonic wind tunnel. Making those measurements can be difficult, and so it's a highly skilled, professional workforce and the number of people who do that is really quite small."

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/16442/DARPA_To_Develop_Military_Aircraft_Engine_Capable_Of_Mach_5_Speed#.V3BWJ6LR9OZ

More coverage.

DARPA revives turbine-ramjet concept for hypersonics

A turbine-based combined cycle (TBCC) propulsion system to enable routine hypersonic flight by a vehicle that can take-off and land from a runway is back on the agenda at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) after a five-year hiatus.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/darpa-revives-turbine-ramjet-concept-for-hypersonics-426735/

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/revelaed-america-will-have-lethal-hypersonic-weapons-by-the-16835?page=show

BAE Hypersonic Response Aircraft

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cInXWApcbew

bobbymike said:

BAE Hypersonic Response Aircraft

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cInXWApcbew

Click to expand...

Hmm...Skylon influenced much?... ;D

Enough to make you cry:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GM2bNiQS7F0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVtosAjWUvY

(Shamelessly snaked from OrionBB's blog. ;D)

57 years ago amazing. :'(

A modern ALBM would be such a simple and elegant interim solution while we develop hypersonic air breathers. But as we've seen now with GBSD doubt we can even build one.

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/08/us-will-have-test-of-hypersonic-glide.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29&utm_content=FaceBook

This should be a top three, at least, R&D program with spending in the billions per annum across all services, including the nuclear labs.

bobbymike said:

57 years ago amazing. :'(

A modern ALBM would be such a simple and elegant interim solution while we develop hypersonic air breathers. But as we've seen now with GBSD doubt we can even build one.

Click to expand...

Any advantage to that over this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyhgQ9K4axk

Well, a B-52 could have carried four Skybolts. (That C-17 example is more the size of an ICBM.)

DARPA Advanced Full Range Engine BAA

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=e9b181229904ade3992d2f0c21cf1aab&tab=core&_cview=0

https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=abd1d7a237bbb47d78de5d722a9d7fca

http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/04/problem-pentagon-hypersonic-missile/127493/?oref=DefenseOneFB

USA's hypersonic programme could rile Russia and China

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usas-hypersonic-programme-could-rile-russia-and-chi-429952/

Flyaway said:

USA's hypersonic programme could rile Russia and China

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usas-hypersonic-programme-could-rile-russia-and-chi-429952/

Click to expand...

Uh oh. We better not do it then. I'm sure a phone call or two from Xi to the democratic party will have them squealing about it being "destabilizing" in the press in no time.

"“Initially we might think that [hypersonic] is the silver bullet,” Mark Hilborne, lecturer at the defence studies department of King’s College London, told the Royal Aeronautical Society’s air power conference. “But these weapons might undermine strategic agreements between nuclear states.”

Hilborne says that both China and Russia are developing their own air-launched hypersonic weapons, but have revealed little about their programmes, in sharp contrast to the USA's transparency over its PGS effort.

While the USA has stated PGS will only carry a conventional payload, Hilborne says China and Russia may distrust Washington's assurances and there is no agreement in place to prevent the two from arming their hypersonic missiles with nuclear warheads.

China carried out its seventh hypersonic test in April, a similar number to that carried out by the USA, “and as far as we know they were broadly successful”, Hilborne says.
"

Hmmm, so all three are working on them; the US is being the most transparent. But it's he's worried about the US causing a problem? Typical.