Register here

Author Topic: US Prompt Global Strike Capability  (Read 251175 times)

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« on: July 01, 2009, 12:38:09 pm »
From Global Security Newswire: http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20090701_5635.php

Gen Chilton is my favorite general in the Air Force. He boldly speaks of the requirements for not only prompt global strike but a strong nuclear deterrent with a modernized triad. He has piloted several shuttle missions and is very well spoken with regard to national security issues. Chilton 2012 for President!
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #1 on: April 14, 2010, 07:05:51 pm »
From Defensetech.org April 12, 2010:

Gates Says U.S. Has Conventionally Armed ICBMs

Yesterday, on NBC’s Meet the Press, Defense Secretary Robert Gates may have revealed the existence of a new weapon in America’s arsenal, a conventionally-armed ICBM. It was thought development and deployment of conventionally tipped ICBMs was still years away; a prototype is scheduled for a test flight next month.

Responding to a question from NBC’s David Gregory on the ability to deter nuclear armed rogue states, Gates said: “We have, in addition to the nuclear deterrent today, a couple of things we didn’t have in the Soviet days… And we have prompt global strike affording us some conventional alternatives on long-range missiles that we didn’t have before.”

the rest of the story - http://defensetech.org/2010/04/12/gates-says-u-s-has-conventionally-armed-icbms/#axzz0l87v45fQ
« Last Edit: March 21, 2014, 11:34:48 am by PaulMM (Overscan) »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2010, 12:43:29 am »
Probably is a prototype of CAV/FALCON.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2010, 01:00:27 am »
Or more likely the conventional Trident program has gone ahead:

Quote
In 2001, Defense Department planners began searching for something that could hit a foe almost instantly without risking a nuclear holocaust. Most of the solutions -- unmanned bombers, faster cruise missiles, hypersonic "glide vehicles" coasting in from space -- required a decade or more of development. The Navy, however, had been testing conventionally armed Trident II missiles since 1993. With a few hundred million dollars, strategists said, the first Prompt Global Strike submarines could be ready to go in just two years.

The $60 million conventional missile needs to be far more accurate than the nuclear version. But the multiple warheads can lock onto GPS coordinates while streaking through space. Upon entering the atmosphere, the warheads use flaps to steer to a target. With the Trident II's range of 6000 nautical miles, subs armed with the missiles could threaten a whole continent's worth of enemy positions. "Now," says Benedict, who leads the Trident conversion effort, "we've got the capability to hold all of these targets in all these hot spots at risk at one time."

In 1988, Lockheed Martin's Trident II D5 nuclear ballistic missile entered service on Ohio class submarines. In the Prompt Global Strike program, each sub would be armed with 22 nuclear Tridents, along with two retrofitted Tridents, each with four independently targetable warheads. here's how a conventional Trident II would work.


1 Gas pressure ejects the Trident II from a patrolling submarine. Once the missile clears the water, the first-stage engine ignites and the aerospike at the nose extends to improve aerodynamics. Stage 1 burns for approximately 65 seconds. When the Trident is locked onto targets at its maximum range (roughly 6000 nautical miles), this burn carries the missile a few hundred miles downrange at a 45-degree angle. Because all propellant must be used, the missile corkscrews to burn off excess fuel for closer targets.
2 As stage 1 falls away from the missile, the second-stage engine ignites for another 65-second burn that carries the Trident an additional 500 to 800 miles downrange. The nose cone fairing (blue) is ejected to shed weight.
3 After separation from stage 2, the third stage engine burns for approximately 40 seconds, concluding the boost phase and lofting the Trident II up to 600 miles above the Earth -- the altitude of some weather satellites.
4 At the apogee of the Trident's trajectory, the third stage falls away, leaving the post-boost vehicle, or bus (red). It receives navigational updates and deploys the four individually targeted warheads (green). Traveling at 13,000 mph and accurate to 30 ft., the warheads are GPS-guided on descent by means of tiny flaps. Two types of warheads are under consideration: the fragmentation version, which shatters tungsten rods just above a target, and a bunker-busting metal "shock impactor" that relies on kinetic energy for its destructive power.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/4203874?page=1
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2010, 04:24:33 am »
So the US have developed an Homing MaRV for Trident II. Possible, but how they concealed its TESTING, since an Homing MaRV (GPS or other) with a conventional warhead is undistinguinshable form a nuclear one ?  Or, it has not been tested yet.  BTW, an Homing MaRV with a 30 ft accuracy is a wonderful first strike weapons on nuclear ICBM silos... rather destabilizing, isn't it ?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2010, 04:50:11 am »
So the US have developed an Homing MaRV for Trident II. Possible, but how they concealed its TESTING, since an Homing MaRV (GPS or other) with a conventional warhead is undistinguinshable form a nuclear one ?

Given that it would manuever only in the final phases you'd probably have to have an observer (electronic or otherwise) fairly close to see it performing the terminal manuevers.  Also, it could be the other side did see and simply hasn't said anything.  It's not like guided RVs have never been tested in the past.



Or, it has not been tested yet.  BTW, an Homing MaRV with a 30 ft accuracy is a wonderful first strike weapons on nuclear ICBM silos... rather destabilizing, isn't it ?

More destabilizing than a 75ft accurate nuke?   ::)   Exactly how is a 30ft accuracy CONVENTIONAL warhead more destabilizing than a nuclear one which has a FAR higher PK against hardened targets?  (30 ft with a conventional warhead against a hardened target is effectively a miss.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2010, 06:46:21 am »
On the detactability of the testing of a Homing MaRV you are right, provided you encrypt the telemetry (forbidden under SALT, START, etc).
On the destabilizing effect, I've not mentioned a CONVENTIONAL warhead. At 30 ft accuracy, you could use a 0.1 KT warhead to bust a silo, so you could strike with really low side effect,  not to mention the possibility of a decapitation strike. If firing from the Mediterranean, for example, a depressed trajectory Trident II could reach Moscow in how much time, five minutes ? Or Peking firing from the East China Sea ? 3 minutes ?
BTW, if a 30 ft. accuracy strike with a conventional warhead against a hardened target is a miss, how a conventional prompt global strike can be useful, at least if you'll not be content to strike a dictator while in a seaside resort ?
Just thinking aloud. Those sort of things were considered VERY destabilising during the Cold War.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2010, 09:32:50 am »
A little off-topic (but not much, see my last reply). The START II topic is still locked, so I'll say it here: it is my view only, or the START II count of delivery systems doen't include non-intercontinental range ones ? So, what about the in-development SLIRBM (Submarine Launched IRBM) ? And, can a 32" missile be fitted, with modifications, in Los Angeles-class and following classes attack subs ?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #8 on: April 15, 2010, 10:56:47 am »
On the detactability of the testing of a Homing MaRV you are right, provided you encrypt the telemetry (forbidden under SALT, START, etc).
On the destabilizing effect, I've not mentioned a CONVENTIONAL warhead. At 30 ft accuracy, you could use a 0.1 KT warhead to bust a silo, so you could strike with really low side effect,  not to mention the possibility of a decapitation strike. If firing from the Mediterranean, for example, a depressed trajectory Trident II could reach Moscow in how much time, five minutes ? Or Peking firing from the East China Sea ? 3 minutes ?
BTW, if a 30 ft. accuracy strike with a conventional warhead against a hardened target is a miss, how a conventional prompt global strike can be useful, at least if you'll not be content to strike a dictator while in a seaside resort ?
Just thinking aloud. Those sort of things were considered VERY destabilising during the Cold War.

Pershing II was in that class.  I figured you meant conventional because that's what the thread is about.  Why would I assume otherwise?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #9 on: April 15, 2010, 10:59:38 am »
A little off-topic (but not much, see my last reply). The START II topic is still locked, so I'll say it here: it is my view only, or the START II count of delivery systems doen't include non-intercontinental range ones ? So, what about the in-development SLIRBM (Submarine Launched IRBM) ? And, can a 32" missile be fitted, with modifications, in Los Angeles-class and following classes attack subs ?

Depends how long it is.  (I thought SLIRBM -based on KEI IIRC- got canned a long time ago, if it were even a formal project.)  What I'd wonder is how they'd count it.  ISTR they were to be four to a Trident II cell.  That could be 96 conventional ballistic missiles per SSGN potentially.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Ian33

  • Guest
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #10 on: April 15, 2010, 12:02:20 pm »
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12061&page=89

Quote
FIGURE 4-2 Illustration of the reentry vehicles (RVs) proposed for different stages of conventional prompt global strike (CPGS) systems. A previously developed modification to ballistic reentry, E2, is the basis for the proposed short-term Conventional Trident Modification (CTM) option. For the Submarine-Launched Global Strike Missile (SLGSM), a scaled-up version of the previously developed Mk 500 is the proposed RV, which is designed to have a glide range less than 1,000 nmi.

Have a look at the picture in the link.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #11 on: April 15, 2010, 05:11:44 pm »
Interesting comments thanks sferrin and Skybolt! I'm leaning toward covert testing of warheads on D-5s. There seems to have been a higher number of Trident test launches from about 2006 onward.

I think it is always interesting to continue to monitor the size of the black budget. It is close to 30% of the TOTAL white world procurement budget. There has to be a lot of very interesting things going on  B) :o
« Last Edit: April 15, 2010, 05:14:32 pm by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #12 on: April 15, 2010, 05:26:06 pm »
Interesting comments thanks sferrin and Skybolt! I'm leaning toward covert testing of warheads on D-5s. There seems to have been a higher number of Trident test launches from about 2006 onward.

I think it is always interesting to continue to monitor the size of the black budget. It is close to 30% of the TOTAL white world procurement budget. There has to be a lot of very interesting things going on  B) :o

Nothing covert about it, Lockheed's LETB-2 tail kit has flown on D-5 tests.
The size of the classified budget does not tell you much, in fact it more often than not has a few very expensive programs and lots of little ones. It's also mostly R&D, not procurement. A lot of things that are known to the public are also stuffed into there for silly reasons (until recently pretty much anything U-2 related was classified, for example).

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #13 on: April 15, 2010, 05:26:45 pm »
There has to be a lot of very interesting things going on  B) :o

Not necessarily, at least from the "Secret PRojects Forum" point of view. The money could easily be spent on a mix of cost over-runs, covert operations (including just handing fat stacks of cash to scumbags to get 'em on our side), bureauocracy (including environmental cleanups and the like), contractor/politician bribing, etc.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #14 on: April 15, 2010, 05:48:05 pm »
OK maybe I hope there is a lot of interesting things going on  ;)
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #15 on: April 15, 2010, 05:49:15 pm »
And this is the patent that covers the Lockheed tail kit:
http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=Z7cCAAAAEBAJ&dq=6,502,785

Lockheed press release from 2003 mentioning this:
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2003/LockheedMartinAwardedPatentForAThre.html

Most of the life extension test flights since 2002/2003 have flown with LETB-2 or a development variant as the RV. It is a Mk4 with tailkit and aeroshell that makes it the size of a Mk5.
Based on information in the public domain, the CEP is likely to be around that of a JDAM. Of particular interest is that one flight demonstrated slowing the RV from Mach 8 to subsonic over the target. This demonstration was related more to CAV than LETB-2, as it's a requirement if CAV is to deploy a conventional guided weapon or submunition as a payload rather than a unitary warhead or kinetic penetrator.

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #16 on: April 15, 2010, 09:14:54 pm »
Seems like they test it 2009 ?

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #17 on: April 16, 2010, 01:14:33 am »
Seems like they test it 2009 ?

The LETB had a predecessor, Enhanced Effectiveness, which flew in 2002.
In 2005 the first version of LETB (LETB-1?) flew in a Trident D-5 test.
In 2009 it flew again (LETB-2), this time with more advanced avionics to demonstrate new firing range capabilities that also laid the groundwork for retasking in flight.

There may have been a test between 2005 and 2009, but I have not yet found the funding for it. Over the course of this effort the funding sources have shifted a few times along with the program name.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #18 on: April 16, 2010, 01:26:03 am »
Quote
Why would I assume otherwise?
Sferrin, you're right, but a Homing MaRV, from any point of view, is an eminently dual use technology (conventional and nuclear). I'd say that if you develop a Homing MaRV with a conventional warhead in mind it is easier to convert it to nuclear than the other way around. My feeling.
As for the method of counting SLIRBM, I think it is criitical for assessing the REAL weight of nuclear (as opposed to stated) in the US defense posture in 20 years. START II could well come out as being the seal on a conversion from intercontinental range to short-to-midrange emphasis. Every actual and potential rogue state power centers are well within range of an SLIRBM. And for Russia, of SRBMs like Iskander.

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2010, 01:37:00 am »
Sferrin, you're right, but a Homing MaRV, from any point of view, is an eminently dual use technology (conventional and nuclear). I'd say that if you develop a Homing MaRV with a conventional warhead in mind it is easier to convert it to nuclear than the other way around.

Sorry, missed the earlier posts. The LETB tail kit is not homing. The Navy is though working on a new, larger RV more like CAV/HTV-2 which is for the new SLIRBM booster. It's to carry a payload of tungsten darts much like the anti-runway Pershing II variant proposed (and tested?) in the 80s. That vehicle may be homing.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #20 on: April 16, 2010, 01:39:05 am »
Also known as "Rods from god(s)".

Full PDF (prepublication copy) of the above mentioned report can be found here:
http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/natresearchcouncil.pdf
« Last Edit: April 16, 2010, 01:49:25 am by Skybolt »

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #21 on: April 16, 2010, 01:56:47 am »
Also known as "Rods from god(s)".

Full PDF (prepublication copy) of the above mentioned report can be found here:
http://www.cdi.org/pdfs/natresearchcouncil.pdf

They curiously left out a lot on the AHW biconic RV, and don't seem to have the MLRB right (mixed up with another program?). MLRB is more similar to HpMaRV than to AMaRV, with crossrange that is very close to the CAV requirements.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2010, 02:00:16 am by quellish »

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #22 on: April 16, 2010, 05:18:54 am »
Seems like they test it 2009 ?

The LETB had a predecessor, Enhanced Effectiveness, which flew in 2002.
In 2005 the first version of LETB (LETB-1?) flew in a Trident D-5 test.
In 2009 it flew again (LETB-2), this time with more advanced avionics to demonstrate new firing range capabilities that also laid the groundwork for retasking in flight.

There may have been a test between 2005 and 2009, but I have not yet found the funding for it. Over the course of this effort the funding sources have shifted a few times along with the program name.

Thanks any pic about it ?

Ian33

  • Guest
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #23 on: April 16, 2010, 10:56:18 am »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #24 on: April 16, 2010, 01:57:17 pm »
A little bit of information from Ares Blog (Aviation Week)
     
Obama's NPR Points to Conventional ICBMS
Posted by Michael Bruno at 4/12/2010 5:50 AM CDT

The Obama administration’s Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) represents a significant shift toward nuclear nonproliferation, counterterrorism and even a stronger emphasis on conventional deterrence. And it raises the threshold for consideration of the use and role of nuclear weapons.

In turn, the April 6 blueprint (link to PDF) will set the tone for numerous U.S. programs from conventionally armed, intercontinental ballistic missiles to intelligence efforts to the next bomber, with related budget requests seen starting in Fiscal 2012, according to senior officials at the Pentagon. The existing triad of land- and sea-based ICBMs and bombers will shrink or be repurposed, although it remains to be seen how exactly, while the NPR calls for elimination from U.S. stores of the Tomahawk, a nuclear-equipped, sea-launched cruise missile. Spending for the nuclear infrastructure, such as plants, labs and workers, would grow.

In the U.K., advocates of eliminating funding for the Trident element of Britain’s nuclear deterrent are citing both the NPR and the new U.S.-Russia arms control treaty as reasons why London should give up on the submarine-launched missile. But in the U.S., observers expect less dramatic change to the nuclear arsenal, or at least any time soon.

Still, what will a prompt global strike ICBM look like? How and from where will it be launched? Look for more information over the next year or so as the idea gains roots in Washington.
====================================================================

So my plan would be that if you lose a launcher from your START totals even though it is a conventional ICBM I would build a very large heavy lift conventional ICBM because you still would lose only one launcher even if you had 25 conventional warheads.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #25 on: April 16, 2010, 02:31:13 pm »
Thanks any pic about it ?

Link to the patent is earlier in the thread, and there is a photo of the RV on page 101 of the above PDF

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #26 on: April 16, 2010, 05:46:54 pm »
Sferrin, you're right, but a Homing MaRV, from any point of view, is an eminently dual use technology (conventional and nuclear). I'd say that if you develop a Homing MaRV with a conventional warhead in mind it is easier to convert it to nuclear than the other way around.

Sorry, missed the earlier posts. The LETB tail kit is not homing. The Navy is though working on a new, larger RV more like CAV/HTV-2 which is for the new SLIRBM booster. It's to carry a payload of tungsten darts much like the anti-runway Pershing II variant proposed (and tested?) in the 80s. That vehicle may be homing.

Don't know if they ever tested the Pershing II anti-runway variant but I remember reading an article back in the late 80's early 90's about work Sandia had done towards the hard target penetrating nuke for the Pershing II.  They launched RVs into a granite mountain, and they survived.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #27 on: April 16, 2010, 06:24:38 pm »
Don't know if they ever tested the Pershing II anti-runway variant but I remember reading an article back in the late 80's early 90's about work Sandia had done towards the hard target penetrating nuke for the Pershing II.  They launched RVs into a granite mountain, and they survived.

In the mid-90s AF did a test using a Minuteman launch with an inert RV vs. a concrete target as part of Hard Target Defeat.
The RV won.

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #28 on: April 16, 2010, 06:33:30 pm »
Don't know if they ever tested the Pershing II anti-runway variant but I remember reading an article back in the late 80's early 90's about work Sandia had done towards the hard target penetrating nuke for the Pershing II.  They launched RVs into a granite mountain, and they survived.

In the mid-90s AF did a test using a Minuteman launch with an inert RV vs. a concrete target as part of Hard Target Defeat.
The RV won.

thanks quellish again , so they can change LETB warhead to nuke ? and you can send more information about test of minuteman RV vs. concrete target ?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #29 on: April 16, 2010, 08:05:55 pm »
Don't know if they ever tested the Pershing II anti-runway variant but I remember reading an article back in the late 80's early 90's about work Sandia had done towards the hard target penetrating nuke for the Pershing II.  They launched RVs into a granite mountain, and they survived.

In the mid-90s AF did a test using a Minuteman launch with an inert RV vs. a concrete target as part of Hard Target Defeat.
The RV won.

thanks quellish again , so they can change LETB warhead to nuke ? and you can send more information about test of minuteman RV vs. concrete target ?

Or better yet, post it.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #30 on: April 16, 2010, 09:13:54 pm »

Or better yet, post it.

better than nuke ?

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #31 on: April 16, 2010, 11:15:35 pm »
thanks quellish again , so they can change LETB warhead to nuke ? and you can send more information about test of minuteman RV vs. concrete target ?

LETB is a tail kit for the Mk4 RV, a set of avionics and control surfaces that can be added to an existing Mk4 to enable new capabilities. It was, in fact, originally intended for nuclear RVs (and for the most part still is). It does make the RV accurate enough that a conventional payload is an option.

sferrin, post what?

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #32 on: April 17, 2010, 12:00:07 am »
Or better yet, post it.

I am taking a guess that you mean this:
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/81935.pdf
"The Air Force briefly studied the penetration capabilities of conventional ICBMs in the mid- 1990s. In August 1995 it launched an ICBM armed with a “pointy” front end (and no explosive warhead) against a granite slab that had characteristics similar to reinforced concrete. Press reports indicate that the warhead entered the target at a 90 degree angle and penetrated to a depth of 30 feet, which is greater than the depth of penetration of any existing U.S. weapon."

Source is listed as "Grossman, Elaine M. “Pentagon Eyes Bunker-Busting Conventional Ballistic Missile for Subs.” Inside the Pentagon. June 27, 2002. p. 1"
NY Times covered this in the early 00's as well.

The MTD series of tests in the 1990s would probably be of more interest. MTD-1 (and I think 2) used an Army Storm missile mated with a modified Pershing II RV to test accuracy, penetration, and range safety advances. A lot of the hardware was barely modified COTS.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #33 on: April 17, 2010, 05:05:14 am »
Or better yet, post it.

I am taking a guess that you mean this:
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/81935.pdf
"The Air Force briefly studied the penetration capabilities of conventional ICBMs in the mid- 1990s. In August 1995 it launched an ICBM armed with a “pointy” front end (and no explosive warhead) against a granite slab that had characteristics similar to reinforced concrete. Press reports indicate that the warhead entered the target at a 90 degree angle and penetrated to a depth of 30 feet, which is greater than the depth of penetration of any existing U.S. weapon."

Source is listed as "Grossman, Elaine M. “Pentagon Eyes Bunker-Busting Conventional Ballistic Missile for Subs.” Inside the Pentagon. June 27, 2002. p. 1"
NY Times covered this in the early 00's as well.

The MTD series of tests in the 1990s would probably be of more interest. MTD-1 (and I think 2) used an Army Storm missile mated with a modified Pershing II RV to test accuracy, penetration, and range safety advances. A lot of the hardware was barely modified COTS.

Any info on the MTD series would be interesting.  Do you know if there was a Sandia connection as there was in the instance I read of (the source I read didn't list a name of a program, just that they'd tested an RV against granite).
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #34 on: April 17, 2010, 10:55:36 am »
Some good information in this Defense Science Board report - http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/ADA446218.pdf

Also if you scroll through the reports section you will find some good nuclear deterrent papers and DEW papers. I am assuming most on this site know of the Defense Science Board but thought I would post this anyway. I like the DSB because they are pretty unabashedly hawkish.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #35 on: April 17, 2010, 01:18:01 pm »
Speaking of DSB, Appendix D of this report http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA498403 is well worth reading. Se expecially the problems of GPS homing on ballistic RV and methods of overcoming them.

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #36 on: April 17, 2010, 02:30:29 pm »
Any info on the MTD series would be interesting.  Do you know if there was a Sandia connection as there was in the instance I read of (the source I read didn't list a name of a program, just that they'd tested an RV against granite).

DTIC is full of information on the MTD flights.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #37 on: April 17, 2010, 05:40:02 pm »
Skybolt - that is an very interesting report. There are a couple of interviews with Gen Cartwright (CINC SPACCOM) and I believe testimony in front of the the Senate Armed Services Committee, Strategic Forces Subcommittee talking about eventually hitting targets globally in "milliseconds"!! Now from 200 + miles in space that has to mean DEW. Anyone else come across information on this?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #38 on: April 17, 2010, 05:45:45 pm »
Thanks any pic about it ?

Link to the patent is earlier in the thread, and there is a photo of the RV on page 101 of the above PDF

It like Falcon HTV ?

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #39 on: April 17, 2010, 05:59:37 pm »
It like Falcon HTV ?

No, not really. Both HTV-1 and HTV-2 have more crossrange.

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #40 on: April 17, 2010, 07:23:30 pm »
It like Falcon HTV ?

No, not really. Both HTV-1 and HTV-2 have more crossrange.

I hear HTV used Minuteman III , or the can take HTV to Trident ?

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #41 on: April 17, 2010, 10:24:51 pm »
I hear HTV used Minuteman III , or the can take HTV to Trident ?

No. They are test vehicles to be launched on Minotaur boosters.

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #42 on: April 17, 2010, 10:28:04 pm »
I hear HTV used Minuteman III , or the can take HTV to Trident ?

No. They are test vehicles to be launched on Minotaur boosters.

Ah , my bad ,  thanks quellish .

Offline John21

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 139
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #43 on: April 18, 2010, 07:21:50 pm »
Thank you for starting this thread. :) I was just going to post this as a new topic here when I found out about this on the world armed forces. I do wonder what else the U.S. has up it's sleeves that no one really knows about? B)
« Last Edit: April 18, 2010, 07:47:17 pm by John21 »

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #44 on: April 18, 2010, 08:23:16 pm »
Thank you for starting this thread. :) I was just going to post this as a new topic here when I found out about this on the world armed forces. I do wonder what else the U.S. has up it's sleeves that no one really knows about? B)

There's nothing up the sleeves here, I think Gates just meant the US has the programs in development.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #45 on: April 19, 2010, 01:14:14 am »
Yep, I came to the very same conclusion. BTW, as to put a megawatt laser in orbit, presently the US lacks (as everyone else) a booster powerful enough to carry it in one piece and will in a few moths lack a capability to assemble complex satellites in space. Either the US has devised a megawatt laser light enough to be put in orbit in one piece aboard a Delta IV, or Gen. Cartwright is speaking of wishes, not actual programs. As to the possiblity of automatically assemble a megawatt laser in orbit, it could be possible, but I think it would require development tests of which there is no trace. And, it the US have a lightweigth megawatt laser, the best place to put it on now is a 747 and use it as boost phase intercept.
As a final note, the programs described in the preceding post demonstrate that even Homing MaRV can be very different from one another, being optimized for diving longitudinally along the re-entry path (FALCON) to use GPS after the plasma blackout phase and disperse submunition or PGS, or for high cross range to either take an early warning radar by surprise, or to reprogram the target in flight (useful for launch under attack), or to something else. And then are unknows, for example active guidance (radar image mapping as in Pershing II, or more exotic like antiradiation or even home-on-jam).
« Last Edit: April 19, 2010, 01:18:57 am by Skybolt »

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 738
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #46 on: April 19, 2010, 06:02:28 am »
YAs to the possiblity of automatically assemble a megawatt laser in orbit, it could be possible, but I think it would require development tests of which there is no trace.

Automatic docking was demonstrated on STP-1.  Zenith Star was to be remotely assembled.  The shuttle would have never been used for this anyways, if it was not canceled.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #47 on: April 19, 2010, 06:05:53 am »
Oh yes, but an operational  space-based megawatt laser assembled in orbit would need some test flights, I assume.... are there trace of that ?

Offline mz

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 682
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #48 on: April 19, 2010, 06:52:16 am »
Ok, had too much coffee!
The orbiter has the robot arm, astronauts and an airlock. It would be a pretty robust system for this assembly. Lots of veteran astronauts with experience from the ISS, Hubble and other sats. First launch the laser satellite's bus (you could do that even with a Delta IV), then launch the laser with the shuttle. Rendezvous and attach on orbit. Theoretically, the shuttle can even catch objects with no attitude control.
I assume autonomous assembly / docking would eat some of the payload capacity as both parties would need attitude and rendezvous hardware, also it would be a newer technology (Russians have used it successfully in space station assembly). STS can act as a sort of a "tug" so the modules can be more specialized.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #49 on: April 19, 2010, 06:52:40 am »
Skybolt since it was your DTIC find you should post the link from your future ICBM/SLBM thread. I believe one of the papers about the future SLBMs had a lot of MaRV information including things like fin or strake placement to accomplish pull up/pull down maneuvers and cross range maneuvers.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #51 on: April 19, 2010, 09:05:48 am »
As for automatic rendez-vous, ESA too has pretty advanced technology used in the new replenishment module for the ISS. Automatic assembly is surely possible, but it would require testing, and test such things in orbit SECRETLY is quite difficult.... and that was all the argument about.

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 738
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #52 on: April 19, 2010, 10:42:49 am »
but it would require testing, and test such things in orbit SECRETLY is quite difficult.... and that was all the argument about.

No, it would be quite easy to test.  Do you know all the testing that has been done on orbit to date?

Offline mz

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 682
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #53 on: April 19, 2010, 12:12:39 pm »
but it would require testing, and test such things in orbit SECRETLY is quite difficult.... and that was all the argument about.

No, it would be quite easy to test.  Do you know all the testing that has been done on orbit to date?

Yep, the Russians have a long history of building space stations like that. And the Progress resupplies the ISS routinely - robotically. The US has had two recent autonomous demonstrators, XSS-11 and Orbital Express. At least one was successful. The ATV flies to ISS quite autonomously (the first flight had some backup Russian hardware AFAIK?). The HTV flies to the vicinity and is grabbed and berthed by the robot arm.

Offline Woody

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 288
  • Passionate about the advancement of technology
    • http://www.freewebs.com/ian_francis_wood/
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #54 on: April 22, 2010, 08:35:13 pm »
Have we done the X-37 yet?

http://www.news.com.au/technology/is-the-x-37b-the-start-of-war-in-space/story-e6frfro0-1225856980987

Quote
Built by Boeing's Phantom Works division, the X-37 program was originally headed by NASA.

It was later turned over to the Pentagon's research and development arm and then to a secretive Air Force unit.

And when it launches tonight (local time) in a nine-minute window between 23:52 and 00:01 GMT (09:52 - 10:01 AEST), only a very select few in the US military will know what its "unspecified payload" is.

We do know it can circle the Earth for more than nine months.

“In all honesty, we don’t know when it’s coming back,” US Air Force spokesman Gary Payton told reporters yesterday.

The X37-B was originally planned to require the services of a space shuttle to launch, but now it's a standalone craft.

It also lands like a space shuttle.

As usual with this type of thing, there is plenty of speculation about what the military will do with the X-37B.

Christian Science Monitor believes the X-37B rollout may signal the start of war in space, quoting arms control advocates who say it's clearly the beginning of the "weaponisation of space"


Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #55 on: April 22, 2010, 09:34:13 pm »
Have we done the X-37 yet?

Done? It flew to orbit for the first time today. No relation to global strike. HTV-2 also flew today, which is very related.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #56 on: April 23, 2010, 12:09:24 am »
I posted this question on another thread as well but it is also appropriate to this topic:

Does this day - the launch of HTV-2 on an ICBM - mark the beginning of the conventional prompt global strike era? Will we see this weapon deployed?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #57 on: April 23, 2010, 12:21:53 am »
I believe, yes.
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #58 on: April 23, 2010, 12:41:01 am »
Quote
Do you know all the testing that has been done on orbit to date?
I don't know, but I'd assume the Russians do, at least as for two satellites that go up in two different boosters, than manouver to link up and do it. If one assumes that the Black World is able to contain everything, comprising space-based megawatt lasers already tested and ready to be operational.....  then everything is possible. I think that when the US will decide to develope such an operational (I stress it) weapon, everyone will know in advance.

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #59 on: April 23, 2010, 02:45:24 am »
I posted this question on another thread as well but it is also appropriate to this topic:

Does this day - the launch of HTV-2 on an ICBM - mark the beginning of the conventional prompt global strike era? Will we see this weapon deployed?

No, it's not a weapon, and it wasn't on an ICBM. It was on a launcher made of reconditioned ICBM components.

Precision global strike is already here. The EE/LETB tailkit is *ready for production* and tested. Congress only needs to approve the money and we have precision nuclear strike. Nobody has developed a conventional warhead for the Mk4 RV, but using a concrete filler for a kinetic strike has been talked about. It would not be hard to do so.

HTV-2 is demonstrating a different set of technologies and capabilities. They are hoping for a more CAV-like profile that would allow it to deploy a payload at its destination. A Mk4 can't do that.
« Last Edit: April 23, 2010, 02:50:20 am by quellish »

Ian33

  • Guest
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #60 on: April 23, 2010, 03:08:06 am »
I have these two images from a 1998 paper





X-37B and the CAV

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #61 on: April 23, 2010, 07:03:35 am »
I posted this question on another thread as well but it is also appropriate to this topic:

Does this day - the launch of HTV-2 on an ICBM - mark the beginning of the conventional prompt global strike era? Will we see this weapon deployed?

No, it's not a weapon, and it wasn't on an ICBM. It was on a launcher made of reconditioned ICBM components.

Precision global strike is already here. The EE/LETB tailkit is *ready for production* and tested. Congress only needs to approve the money and we have precision nuclear strike. Nobody has developed a conventional warhead for the Mk4 RV, but using a concrete filler for a kinetic strike has been talked about. It would not be hard to do so.

HTV-2 is demonstrating a different set of technologies and capabilities. They are hoping for a more CAV-like profile that would allow it to deploy a payload at its destination. A Mk4 can't do that.

The Minotaur IV is a Peacekeeper used now for space launches, given the mission the Minotaur IV just flew does it make any difference what you call it. Or is an AC-130 still just a military transport plane?

You mention that the HTV-2 is demonstrating CAV like technologies in order to deliver a payload at its' destination. Might this payload be a weapon? Then the HTV-2 is a weapon.

Besides my point wasn't to split rhetorical hairs but to ask the question about the recognition of an event marking a significant enough capability development to change how we "think" about something.

The aircraft era, it can be argued, started at Kitty Hawk not with a Da Vinci drawing. Eras begin, IMHO, with a change in how we think about the significance of an event.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #62 on: April 24, 2010, 07:04:12 am »
Attached DARPA HTV-2 fact sheet.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Ian33

  • Guest
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #63 on: April 24, 2010, 02:02:18 pm »
Small launch picture and other bits I found on a web browse.



Details of how it was put together



Time line (shows the delays well)



Artist drawing of test vehicle



Test routes








« Last Edit: April 24, 2010, 02:04:43 pm by Ian33 »

Offline robunos

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1722
  • You're Mad, You Are.....
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #64 on: April 25, 2010, 01:45:08 am »
Where ARE the Daleks when you need them......

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #65 on: April 25, 2010, 06:03:47 am »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7107179.ece


cheers,
         Robin.

I love how they trot this out yet again,

"US analysts have also warned of the risk that Chinese or Russian monitors might mistake a hypersonic launch for nuclear attack. “The short flight time ... leaves very little time for an assessment of the situation, putting an enormous strain on national decision-making mechanisms and increasing the probability of an accident,” argued Pavel Podvig of Stanford University. "

Gotta make it big a scarey.  No matter how far-fetched someone is bound to believe it.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #66 on: April 26, 2010, 01:54:40 am »
Italian newspapers reported verbatim the The Times article this week-end.
Besides, am I wrong or the Mission B flight-path implies a substantial cross-range capability, while Mission A is more what a CAV/FALCON is understood to be able to do (gliding along the flight path ) ? What-if we have two different vehicles here ?

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #67 on: April 28, 2010, 03:09:51 am »
No, it would be quite easy to test.  Do you know all the testing that has been done on orbit to date?

Only the testing that has been conducted with the level of oversight and reporting that is required by US law.

And that's everything, right?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #68 on: April 28, 2010, 06:17:10 am »
No, it would be quite easy to test.  Do you know all the testing that has been done on orbit to date?

Only the testing that has been conducted with the level of oversight and reporting that is required by US law.

And that's everything, right?

Not sure if this is sarcasm or not.  Are you saying everything should be reported as in PUBLICLY?  ???
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #69 on: April 28, 2010, 11:17:53 am »
Not sure if this is sarcasm or not.  Are you saying everything should be reported as in PUBLICLY?  ???

I am saying that everything should be conducted lawfully. In the US, we do have laws that require disclosure when public funds are used.
"No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time"

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #70 on: April 28, 2010, 11:23:28 am »
Italian newspapers reported verbatim the The Times article this week-end.
Besides, am I wrong or the Mission B flight-path implies a substantial cross-range capability, while Mission A is more what a CAV/FALCON is understood to be able to do (gliding along the flight path ) ? What-if we have two different vehicles here ?

It's one design. Previously there were two - HTV-1 and HTV-2. HTV-1 was derived from AMaRV and presented less risk, but when it ran into fabrication problems the program was streamlined and focused on HTV-2. HTV-2 is more "DARPA-hard", while HTV-1 was less risk, less payoff, but may have been easier to turn into a production vehicle.
HTV-2's first flight was, well, a first flight. Flight 2 was envelope expansion. HTV-2's high LD is part of the technical payoff of the program and enables the crossrange you see in flight 2.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #71 on: April 28, 2010, 11:32:29 am »
Not sure if this is sarcasm or not.  Are you saying everything should be reported as in PUBLICLY?  ???

I am saying that everything should be conducted lawfully. In the US, we do have laws that require disclosure when public funds are used.
"No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time"

So all "black" programs are illegal?  ???
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Orionblamblam

  • Secret Projects Guru
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 7144
    • Aerospace Projects Review
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #72 on: April 28, 2010, 12:33:47 pm »

"No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time"

So all "black" programs are illegal?  ???

Nope. Every year, simply publish "$2.2 billion spent on classified programs."

There. You've publicly accounted for the expenses.
Aerospace Projects Review


And so the endless circle of life comes to an end, meaningless and grim. Why did they live, and why did they die? No reason. Two hundred million years of evolution snuffed out, for in the end Nature is horrific and teaches us nothing

Offline Byeman

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 738
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #73 on: April 28, 2010, 12:48:44 pm »
Not sure if this is sarcasm or not.  Are you saying everything should be reported as in PUBLICLY?  ???

I am saying that everything should be conducted lawfully. In the US, we do have laws that require disclosure when public funds are used.
"No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time"

And that can be done to Congressional Oversight committees.

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #74 on: April 28, 2010, 01:40:38 pm »
So all "black" programs are illegal?  ???

No. It's how the funds are reported and accounted that can make it legal or not.
For example, PE 0207248F, Special Evaluation Program, is reported in public documents as required by law even though it is a black program. TIMBERWIND was a program that was not legal through its whole life cycle. SDIO may have had a few of those.

And that can be done to Congressional Oversight committees.

Depends on the program. Different programs have different laws governing them. Programs that fall under the civilian intelligence agencies have one set of oversight rules, military programs another.
But all of that is another topic. Ask your local JAG or Inspector General, and be sure to CYA.

Catalytic

  • Guest
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #75 on: May 29, 2010, 03:39:40 am »
OK I'm a little confused, this topic started with a quote from Defense Secretary Robert Gates  “We have, in addition to the nuclear deterrent today, a couple of things we didn't have in the Soviet days… And we have prompt global strike affording us some conventional alternatives on long-range missiles that we didn’t have before.”

Ensuing has been lots of discussion regarding Precision global strike, (tail kits for conventionally armed MaRV's etc).

My question is, do we feel that an ICBM launched from up to 6000 miles away is prompt enough?

Whilst It's a fair comment that the intended targets for these weapons are unlikely to have access to satelite monitoring of missile launches (and so will not be tipped off about the imminent execution of their death sentence). It is an equally fair comment that high value individuals move about frequently (thoughts of Sadam, a restaurant and a B1 or OBL, a sat phone and tora bora come to mind).

How about a 500 lb JDAM out of the back of an X37b? does its level of maneuvering capability (possible capability to hold on station?) offer a level of persistant global strike capability. Would this hypothetical combination offer any advantages in terms of "promptness"?


« Last Edit: May 29, 2010, 03:42:51 am by Catalytic »

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #76 on: May 29, 2010, 07:32:32 am »
OK I'm a little confused, this topic started with a quote from Defense Secretary Robert Gates  “We have, in addition to the nuclear deterrent today, a couple of things we didn't have in the Soviet days… And we have prompt global strike affording us some conventional alternatives on long-range missiles that we didn’t have before.”

Ensuing has been lots of discussion regarding Precision global strike, (tail kits for conventionally armed MaRV's etc).

My question is, do we feel that an ICBM launched from up to 6000 miles away is prompt enough?

Whilst It's a fair comment that the intended targets for these weapons are unlikely to have access to satelite monitoring of missile launches (and so will not be tipped off about the imminent execution of their death sentence). It is an equally fair comment that high value individuals move about frequently (thoughts of Sadam, a restaurant and a B1 or OBL, a sat phone and tora bora come to mind).

How about a 500 lb JDAM out of the back of an X37b? does its level of maneuvering capability (possible capability to hold on station?) offer a level of persistant global strike capability. Would this hypothetical combination offer any advantages in terms of "promptness"?

It is all about concept of operations (what follows is very simplistic reasoning). The key sentence in any global strike article is usually that "the purpose of a Prompt Global Strike System is too hit ANYWHERE on the planet in under two hours" and that is supposed to include from detection to approval (POTUS) to launch and warhead impact/detonation. It will be far more "prompt" in this role than any current system by far - except of course nuclear armed systems (ICBMs and SLBMs) and no one wants to light that candle)

So obviously it is a very restrictive set of circumstances that will make this system a viable use of military power. If there are drones or fighters (or a cruise missile aboard an SSGN) inside this "two hour" window well chances are those systems would be more prompt in a certain situation. Also you are right to point out that for most adversaries [a system like this might be used against] will probably know nothing about it until warhead impact (so would seem very prompt indeed).

As for the X-37 I cannot foresee, IMHO, this system deploying weapons of any kind (A laser for self defense ???) because I don't think any nation will so overtly cross the "space weapons" barrier in the near term.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #77 on: May 29, 2010, 01:44:21 pm »
Persistent global strike is an interesting concept, but if your target has a 20 minutes lead time, on your same words, there is no utility in it, X-37B or not. To kill (er, target) someone, i mean an individual, not a fixed target,  via a conventional  airstrike with a lead time of less than 20 minutes the best way in 20 years is a very high altitude, very long endurance fleet of UCAVs armed with hypervelocity PGS. You have to know the general location of your target (e.g. South Waziristan), have two or three UCAVs orbiting and wait. Better than that there is only  a GEO laser battle station with a multimegawatt weapon. But that is sci-fi right now.

Offline mz

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 682
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #78 on: May 30, 2010, 02:45:05 am »
People need to know the basics of orbital mechanics to understand why space sucks as a place to put traditional weapons in, since you're probably not going to pass close the target area soon. So an ICBM is much faster.

If your target is not on the equator, you have to be in an inclined orbit. Since the Earth turns under you, the target only passes under your path once or twice every 24 hours (if your target is on a lower latitude than your inclination, your orbit passes it both ascending and descending). So the average wait time might be 6 hours. And even then, your phase might be wrong - you're actually on the other side of the earth and only there 45 minutes later (or earlier) when the target is already quite far from directly under your orbit.

Changing orbital inclination in low earth orbit is very very propulsion intensive, it's close to a new launch. No spacecraft can do significant plane changes.

The only way this would work would be a constellation of satellites in different planes or then some further from Earth orbits that can strike different locations with smaller delta vee penalties, but then, those take time to strike too because of the distance.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #79 on: May 31, 2010, 01:57:15 am »
Precisely. That's why I talked of GEO.

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #80 on: June 01, 2010, 02:22:51 pm »
Precisely. That's why I talked of GEO.

Some day I'll find the old Jason reports on why space based lasers are not a good idea.
Someday. Sigh.

Offline mz

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 682
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #81 on: June 01, 2010, 03:47:40 pm »
Precisely. That's why I talked of GEO.

Some day I'll find the old Jason reports on why space based lasers are not a good idea.
Someday. Sigh.

I wonder if there is much accuracy nevermind tracking ability from higher altitudes like GEO where you can actually see at least some more surface at once. Don't know how many sats would be needed for some coverage on just the equator. Notice that GEO is on the equator so you only see large areas of for example Russia at a shallow angle and nothing at the poles. You'd need some larger constellations again.
And when its cloudy, you have problems. Microwaves can penetrate clouds but I have no idea how they would be as weapons. You'd need huge antennas at least. There are interesting engineering problems here.

Offline ouroboros

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 352
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #82 on: June 05, 2010, 04:26:22 am »
There has been some interesting rumblings regarding Iridium and their new Iridium NEXT satellite constellation. They seem to be offering 50Kg subpayload spaces to customers.

http://www.iridium.com/About/IridiumNEXT/HostedPayloads.aspx

Buying up a significant number of slots to put in a rudimentary LEO optical surveillance cloud is not an unrealistic option (if I were an intelligence director of a lesser country, I would be trying to do a consortium buy with other lesser countries' intelligence agencies to have a shared system). At 500 miles altitude, the optical issues aren't horrific, and considering modern adaptive optics and computing power, meeting the payload weight restriction with a high megapixel camera is possible, though the data rate is poor (a way around that is an IR laser space-to-ground comms link, but that cuts into observation time and eats into your payload even if you could use the same tracking mount).

I mention this because prompt global strike ultimately requires either significant theater level surveillance assets and overflight exposure, or a LEO observation platform constellation to watch everything at decent resolutions. And in this day and age, everyone wants more information that can be analyzed later, so a global surveillance system is more attractive. Considering Iridium's main profit center is the DoD contract they have, having prompt global strike surveillance equipment on board would be a sneaky way to deploy the necessary equipment. The conspiracy theorists can also assume that a single "Rod from God" could also be deployed this way too...

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #83 on: June 16, 2010, 05:22:45 pm »
countries' intelligence agencies to have a shared system). At 500 miles altitude, the optical issues aren't horrific, and considering modern adaptive optics and computing power, meeting the payload weight restriction with a

Adaptive optics don't help when looking down, and at the end of the day you still need a big mirror to get anything useful.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #84 on: June 17, 2010, 01:53:10 am »
Shooting with lasers from GEO doesn't necessarily mean IMINT from GEO, or from satellites at all. From what is known on the AfPak drone operations, the hints on the target locations come always from HUMINT on the ground with a sparkling from low-altitude drone IMINT and from SIGINT. Aiming is another matter, though, but that needs only a huge mirror on the laser battlestation (maybe it would be possibile tu use the same mirror used to steer the laser beam). If you want coverage of high latitude locations, you'll have to have lasers in Molnya-type orbits (polar orbits would need too much satellites). All in all, I continue to prefer very high-altitude very high-endurance drones orbiting in theatre for these niche applications.

Offline ouroboros

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 352
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #85 on: June 19, 2010, 06:59:11 am »
countries' intelligence agencies to have a shared system). At 500 miles altitude, the optical issues aren't horrific, and considering modern adaptive optics and computing power, meeting the payload weight restriction with a

Adaptive optics don't help when looking down, and at the end of the day you still need a big mirror to get anything useful.

I'm willing to concede the adaptive optics issue, but hasn't there been enough work on inflatable systems to get the necessary mirror size at low weight? Though there is the issue of the true allowed payload envelope and moment of inertia interfering with the host satellite's operations (and vice versa).


It should be noted that the Iridum NEXT ball is rolling, now that Iridium has contracted with SpaceX for Falcon9 launches. With SpaceX the costs for constellation launch are now merely out of this world, as a opposed to out of their mind...

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #86 on: June 19, 2010, 10:26:48 am »
countries' intelligence agencies to have a shared system). At 500 miles altitude, the optical issues aren't horrific, and considering modern adaptive optics and computing power, meeting the payload weight restriction with a

Adaptive optics don't help when looking down, and at the end of the day you still need a big mirror to get anything useful.

Why not?  As long as there's atmosphere between the mirror and the target, adaptive optics should improve things.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #87 on: June 24, 2010, 02:29:36 am »
Usually it is explained like this: adaptive optics have their limits, and work best when there is little atmosphere distortion (by extension, little atmosphere at all). i.e. with telescopes on high rise (mountains with laminar flow wind conditions). When you look down from space, all the atmosphere is there between you and the target, which is usually very deep under the thickest and most turbulent strata. So, the explanation ends, putting a heavy and complex adaptive optics system on a weight-constrained recon satellite is not worth the effort: better work on other things, like sensors, movement correcting software, platform stability, even optics diameter. Don't know if this is true or partially true and a dizinformatya ruse, but AFAIK no current of future recon satellite is known to have an adaptive optics system. The black world is not as black as before in this matters, so if an adaptive optic is really used or planned for use in space, it must be very black indeed.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #88 on: July 08, 2010, 07:23:00 pm »
Naval PGS News from Defensetech.org

Loading Prompt Global Strike in VLS Cells Will Transform U.S. Naval Power

By Craig Hooper
Defense Tech Naval Warfare Analyst

As the venerable Tomahawk missile becomes too vulnerable for certain targets, naval observers have wondered why the Navy isn’t racing to fill the U.S. surface fleet’s 7,804 Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells with a new generation of anti-ship or fast land-attack munitions. Our wait is over. The big brains at DARPA are aiming to appropriate VLS cells for the Prompt Global Strike Mission. Meet ArcLight–the weapon that will change the way the world thinks about U.S. surface combatants:

    “The ArcLight program will design, build, and flight test a long range (> 2,000 nm) vehicle that carries a 100–200 lb payload(s). ArcLight is based on an SM-3 Block II booster stack, a hypersonic glider and is capable of being launched from a Mark 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) tube. The development of the ArcLight system will enable high speed, long range weapons capable of engaging time critical targets and can be launched from Naval surface and sub-surface assets, and Naval/Air Force air assets.”

Enlisting VLS cells for the Prompt Global Strike (PGS) Mission would be a boon to PGS advocates. First, by decoupling PGS from conventional ballistic missile platforms (the assumed primary delivery system for PGS), Congressional concerns that certain countries might misinterpret a PGS hit as a nuclear strike evaporate–and with Congress aboard, the funding that has crimped PGS development will, assuredly, open.

Read more: http://defensetech.org/#ixzz0t9C8vicO
Defense.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although an interesting concept I liked my idea of transforming an old helicopter carrier deck to hold hundreds of launch cells of various diameter able to launch everything up to ATK's Forward Based Conventional Strike Missile (ground to ground KEI)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forward-Based Conventional Strike
The U.S. Strategic Command has identified a requirement for the rapid fielding of a new, long-range, prompt conventional strike capability against time-sensitive, high-value targets.

ATK is leading a team that includes Textron, Draper Laboratory, and Honeywell to meet this emerging requirement. The FBCS concept proposed by the team will provide a conventional, land-based, penetrating long-range strike capability that will give the National Command Authority a means to attack fixed, hard and deeply buried, mobile and re-locatable targets with improved accuracy anywhere in the world.

The concept is focused on four key tasks:

    * Integration of highly accurate guidance systems for the launch vehicle and weapon.
    * Packaging and delivery of conventional weapons capabilities.
    * Integration of responsible mobile range safety with operational launch command and control.
    * Demonstration of flight hardware.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #89 on: July 09, 2010, 12:05:53 am »
Usually it is explained like this: adaptive optics have their limits, and work best when there is little atmosphere distortion (by extension, little atmosphere at all). i.e. with telescopes on high rise (mountains with laminar flow wind conditions). When you look down from space, all the atmosphere is there between you and the target, which is usually very deep under the thickest and most turbulent strata. So, the explanation ends, putting a heavy and complex adaptive optics system on a weight-constrained recon satellite is not worth the effort: better work on other things, like sensors, movement correcting software, platform stability, even optics diameter. Don't know if this is true or partially true and a dizinformatya ruse, but AFAIK no current of future recon satellite is known to have an adaptive optics system. The black world is not as black as before in this matters, so if an adaptive optic is really used or planned for use in space, it must be very black indeed.

For an imaging platform having adaptive optics would not help anything. How big you can get your mirror is the big limiter to resolution, not distortion.

For a weapon, again I'd have to see if there is an open literature source for this, but in the 80s JASON did a study that blew the idea out of the water. Pointing an orbiting laser down just didn't make sense.

As far as adaptive optics specifically, you couldn't do an artificial guide star looking down. Telescopes and... other things... use a sodium laser to create an artificial star by exciting sodium that lives in a layer about 60 miles above you. Using that as a reference is what allows the system to create corrections.
If you had a layer of sodium at ground level, the laser would be the least of your worries.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #90 on: July 09, 2010, 01:43:11 am »
ArcLight, neat concept, though a 100-200 lbs payload seems puny. You have to have near perfect accuracy, or attack en masse. BTW, to reach the stated range, ArcLight would have to use a ballistic trajectory. If attacking fixed targets like the ones attacked by cruise waves, the target would have some warning time if using a fairly non.sophisticated radar. If this come along, expect a flurry of acivity on terminal defense lasers or radar-controlled high-speed guns. The hypersonic glider warhed could be made to attack at low level, though, but accuracy would be even more critical due to the small size.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #91 on: July 31, 2010, 03:05:23 pm »
http://www.afgsc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123215431

ICBM test launches showcase Global Strike capabilities

by Tech.Sgt. Marcus McDonald
Air Force Global Strike Command Public Affairs

7/28/2010 - BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. -- The chance to launch two Air Force Global Strike Command Minuteman III ICBM test vehicles in June, was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for two missile crews.

Missile maintenance and operational task forces from F.E. Warren AFB, Wyo., and Malmstrom AFB, Mont., combined with the 576th Flight Test Squadron at Vandenberg AFB, Calif., to launch the missiles June 16 and 30 for a "very rare and extraordinary opportunity," said Capt. Isaac Earnhart, 341st Operations Support Squadron missile combat crew commander.

These Malmstrom and F.E. Warren crews continue a 50-year record of deterring potential adversaries. It is a unique training opportunity for crews to turn the launch keys that send an actual missile rocketing into the sky.

The process is careful and deliberate.

"You don't get a second chance with an ICBM test launch," said Mr. Richard Serrano, 576 FLTS instrumentation laboratory team chief at Vandenberg. "You have to do it right the first time."

A successful launch is also a moment of pride for the missile maintenance team, according to Tech. Sgt. Robert Houck, 341 MMXS missile handling team chief at Malmstrom. "It shows what we work on is still a vital weapons system...there's a certain pride in ownership in knowing they put it together and watched it take off," he said.

"Every flight test provides valuable experience to the crews and an evaluation of the missile's accuracy and reliability in its intended operational environment," said Col. Carl DeKemper, 576th FLTS Commander at Vandenberg. "These launches are part of a continuous self-assessment of our proficiency."

The final launch sequence begins years earlier as pre-determined criteria are used to carefully select a missile from the field and then transport it hundreds of miles to Vandenberg for processing by the 576 FLTS, said Capt. Douglas Carmean, 576 FLTS chief of ICBM test operations.

"The process requires deposturing a missile on alert after months of detailed monitoring and shipping the 60,000-lb. missile nearly half the length of the country," said Capt. Earnhart, missile combat crew commander at Malmstrom who took part in the June 30 launch.

Once it has been transported, all missile components are individually inspected. Test equipment is installed and all components are reunited at the launch facility to once again take the shape of a flight-ready missile.

Teams from the operational missile bases come to Vandenberg and assemble the missile as they would at their home bases, said 1st Lt. Jared Hostetler, 341st Missile Maintenance Squadron mechanical flight commander at Malmstrom. The test launches validate maintenance technicians' skills from the operational wings, he said.

Prior to the launch, missile crews are certified by undertaking intensive simulated test launches, Serrano said. Launch day is like the Super Bowl to the missile community, a rare opportunity to see the pay-off of all of the preparation, said Capt. Earnhart.

Another Minuteman III launch is scheduled from Vandenberg Sept. 15, by a missile task force from the 91st Missile Wing, Minot Air Force Base, N.D.

**Note:  Col. David Bliesner will accept command of the 576th Flight Test Squadron during a change of command ceremony Aug. 2.

VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- Ascending into space, a scheduled Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile successfully launches here at 3:01 a.m., Wednesday, June 16 from Launch Facility-10. The missile's single re-entry test vehicle traveled approximately 4,190 miles before hitting its pre-determined target near the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. (U.S. Air Force photo /Joe Davila)
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #92 on: August 13, 2010, 12:41:04 am »
From Draper Labs Website

Advancing GN&C: Technology for Reentry Vehicles

In addition to maintaining deployed strategic systems and modernizing existing systems, Draper is analyzing the GN&C technology needed to enable Prompt Global Strike (PGS) capability to deliver non-nuclear payloads with high accuracy to virtually anywhere on the globe in less than 1 hour.

Draper has conducted experiments with sponsors to demonstrate some of the technologies needed for PGS. In addition, Draper IR&D studies have been initiated to enable the generation of boost-through reentry trajectories in near-real time and to provide in-flight target location updates. Proving this guidance capability will provide a technology base for evolving its use on future smaller missiles, such as the Submarine-Launched Global Strike Missile (SLGSM), on tactical submarines such as the SSGN and NSSN.
--------------------------------------------
Bolding Mine. The bolded line is quite interesting as it discusses Draper Labs development of guidance for warheads that boost through re-entry (is this because there is a "glide phase" while it travels to the target?) and provides inflight target updates (Does this mean a ballistic missile warhead traveling thousands of miles able to hit a moving target?)

I would be interested to hear other interpretations.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #93 on: August 18, 2010, 01:46:14 am »
One problem with prompt Global Strike is GPS makes pretty great guidance for much less trouble then radar… except during reentry when the warhead is blinded for a period by its own plasma shroud. That also means you can’t transmit updated target coordinates to the missile during that period, if they had such a capability in the first place.

 Tests have been done in the past to try to beat this by using larger GPS antennas, the whole body of the warhead actually, and trying to disrupt the plasma by releasing other gases from the warhead. The results are classified, but seem to have had little success.

Another concept for beating this problem is to have the warhead pull up into a sort of glide after reentry, buying it time to reestablish GPS contact and resume guiding, it would then dive again and strike the target. I think this may be what boost through reentry means. I’ve seen a rocket motor proposed as the means of entering the ‘pull up’ phase. Guidance fins may not work for that purpose compared to some kind of reaction jet control system.

However they might also just mean they are working on guidance improvements from the boost phase of flight all the way to the reentry phase. Either way, hitting a moving target with a ballistic missile from intercontinental range is certainly not out of the question. The US would love to be able to do that because of potential ‘WMD convoy’ and ‘Bin Laden Taxi’ scenarios.

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #94 on: August 18, 2010, 01:59:32 am »
One problem with prompt Global Strike is GPS makes pretty great guidance for much less trouble then radar… except during reentry when the warhead is blinded for a period by its own plasma shroud. That also means you can’t transmit updated target coordinates to the missile during that period, if they had such a capability in the first place.

Both have been demonstrated several times already. SWERVE demonstrated one solution for communication during re-entry, STS demonstrated another, and since then several other solutions have been used. GPS can work throughout reentry, though it does not need to for these applications.
One of the bigger problems was range safety for RVs, getting full time telemetry and being able to terminate a naughty RV during a test (or, of course, operationally). That's been solved as well.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #95 on: August 18, 2010, 12:56:45 pm »
Thanks gentlemen love this site what an incredible knowledge based online community.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #96 on: August 18, 2010, 01:36:24 pm »
Both have been demonstrated several times already. SWERVE demonstrated one solution for communication during re-entry, STS demonstrated another, and since then several other solutions have been used. GPS can work throughout reentry, though it does not need to for these applications.
One of the bigger problems was range safety for RVs, getting full time telemetry and being able to terminate a naughty RV during a test (or, of course, operationally). That's been solved as well.

Sure lots of technology has been demonstrated, but something being demonstrated and something working well enough that the problem is solved are two different things. It can be a very long road from concept demonstration to an operational production system. Anyone who knows the true results wouldn’t be able to talk about it.

Since even a 10 meter CEP isn’t good enough for all targets even with a warhead moving at as much as 6km at impact its safe to assume that work is going to keep going forward for a long time yet. Work against moving targets meanwhile will basically have reason to improve until we can hit a 600mph transport plane loaded with nerve gas with an ICBM launched from Vandenberg.



Offline RanulfC

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 418
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #97 on: August 19, 2010, 06:56:00 am »
Did I ever post this paper (I can't find anything in Search if I did so I apologize if this is a double post) on the concept for using the F-15 as the basis of a "Global STrike Eagle" concept?
http://www.responsivespace.com/Papers/RS4%5CPapers%5CRS4_2001P_Chen.pdf

Randy

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #98 on: August 19, 2010, 07:08:12 am »
Ranulfc - Interesting paper. Coming full circle there was discussion on another thread about what a Boeing employee  (VP Global Strike Systems) was talking about Boeing having a Global Strike Weapons Systems in or near production. If you look at this report it shows a "Boeing Global Strike Missile" on the back of an F-15.

Everyone was discussing what type of "aircraft" it was but I was speculating it might be something like this system. 
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #99 on: August 19, 2010, 06:28:28 pm »
Pentagon Nears Finding on Hypersonic Glider Test Failure
Thursday, Aug. 19, 2010
By Elaine M. Grossman
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Defense Department is close to determining what caused a hypersonic glide vehicle to fail during an April flight test, a senior official said today (see GSN, March 15).

(Aug. 19) - The Hypersonic Test Vehicle-2, shown in an illustration. The Defense Department could soon draw conclusions about why an HTV-2 flight test in April resulted in a crash, a senior-level official said (U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency/Aviation Week).

The event was expected to demonstrate technology usable in a conventional "prompt global strike" weapon capable of striking targets anywhere around the world within one hour.

A Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency review board "is in the last phases of its internal review" of the Hypersonic Test Vehicle-2's maiden flight test and should report out in "the next month or so," Zachary Lemnios said at a breakfast session with reporters this morning. "When that review board finishes their work, we’ll come out with a statement on exactly what’s happened."

Using the HTV-2 technology, a joint DARPA-Air Force effort is aimed at developing a Conventional Strike Missile capable of achieving Mach 20 speeds.

Lemnios, who directs the Pentagon's Defense Research and Engineering office, said a significant amount of data was gathered during the April 22 test. Launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., the test vehicle reportedly achieved successful separation from its Minotaur 4 boosters high in the atmosphere.

However, nine minutes into the flight, the dart-shaped glider lost communication and never made it to its notional target, which had been set in the Pacific Ocean north of Kwajalein Atoll.

Initial DARPA analysis was that the loss of the vehicle might have resulted from its self-destruct apparatus, which could automatically terminate flight if it sensed any divergence from its programmed route, according to one defense consultant. Alternatively, any number of other operating failures might have led to the crash, according to officials.

The Hypersonic Test Vehicle-2 reportedly lacks a device that might have signaled activation of the self-destruct sequence, somewhat complicating the DARPA analysis.

"There does not appear to be a mechanism in there that would tell you whether it was self-destruction or not," said the consultant, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the ongoing failure review.

Eric Mazzacone, a DARPA spokesman, said the engineering-review board has been meeting since the end of May to scour "millions" of data points gathered during the flight test.

“Following senior-level [Pentagon] review of those findings, key observations may be released, subject to classification and export-control restrictions," he told Global Security Newswire today.

U.S. Strategic Command chief Gen. Kevin Chilton has said he wants to see the first Conventional Strike Missile fielded at Vandenberg by 2015 (see GSN, July 1, 2009). It would remain on alert, backed up by two spares, for potentially hitting a time-urgent target such as top terrorist leaders spotted at a hideout or a North Korean nuclear missile being readied for launch, according to defense officials.

The HTV-2 has a carbon-fiber aero shell that allows it thermal protection as the delta-wing vehicle glides on the edge of space towards its target. During the test, the vehicle was expected to fly roughly 5,700 kilometers in less than half an hour.

Lemnios would not say today whether the April disappointment is expected to delay the prompt-strike missile's deployment or to hike flight-test costs, which were projected last spring to reach or even surpass $500 million. He also declined to speculate whether plans for the next such HTV-2 flight, slated for March 2011, would be affected.

"I'm not going to make that determination until I see exactly what came out of the review board," said Lemnios, who is responsible for overseeing DARPA efforts.

Pentagon budget officials -- assembling their request for fiscal 2012 funding -- recently examined the possibility of splitting off the futuristic HTV-2 technology development effort from the Air Force-led Conventional Strike Missile program, according to defense sources. The White House is expected to submit the new budget to Congress next February.

If implemented, the idea would have been to allow the Air Force-led missile program to be fielded more quickly by pairing it with a less futuristic payload-delivery vehicle, available in the nearer term.

However, defense officials opted to defer a decision on the matter until after next year's flight test, these sources said.

Though Lemnios would not discuss program or budget specifics, he did describe the general thinking behind the HTV-2 effort.

"The risk that we put into those programs -- the risk level that we're willing to put into those investments -- is enormously high," he told reporters at the Defense Writers Group event. "The impact is also high."
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #100 on: September 22, 2010, 03:24:33 pm »
No funds for conventional Trident and some other Prompt Global Strike news from Global Security Newswire:

Senate Panel Again Cuts Funds for Conventional Trident Missile
Wednesday, Sept. 22, 2010
By Elaine M. Grossman
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee last week zeroed funding for Conventional Trident Modification, a proposed Defense Department program to allow a small number of the Navy's D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles to carry a non-nuclear payload (see GSN, May 21, 2009).

(Sep. 22) - A U.S. Trident 2 D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missile takes off in a 1987 flight test. A Senate panel last week eliminated funding for a Pentagon study about the implications of placing conventional armaments on some D-5 missiles (U.S. Defense Department photo).

For the new fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, the Obama administration had requested $10 million for a "global strike study" to determine "what surety, safety and ambiguity issues may exist" if nuclear weapon-carrying submarines "were outloaded with both conventional and nuclear payloads," according to a Navy budget document submitted to Capitol Hill in February.

The United States today maintains 14 "SSBN" nuclear-armed submarines. With two vessels in overhaul at any given time, the remaining 12 operational boats carry 288 Trident D-5 missiles, fitted with a total 1,152 nuclear warheads, according to nuclear analysts Robert Norris and Hans Kristensen.

Beginning several years ago, the Pentagon proposed equipping 24 of the Trident D-5 missiles with conventional warheads, and fielding the weapons aboard the same stealthy submarines that carry identical nuclear missiles.

The Senate panel noted in a press release last week that it had eliminated fiscal 2011 funds for the so-called Conventional Trident Modification, but it opted not to comment on the action in its report accompanying the appropriations bill.

The cut in funds for this budget line item has become almost an annual legislative ritual, thanks to Pentagon persistence in pursuing a conventional version of the Trident missile and the Senate appropriators' repeated refusals to fund the system (see GSN, Nov. 7, 2008; and Dec. 13, 2007). Modifications to the D-5's re-entry body would include a precision-guidance system and modified control surfaces to improve its accuracy.

Defense leaders have argued the technology could be useful for the "prompt global strike" mission, in which an attack might be carried out anywhere around the globe with just an hour's notice. Use of the weapon would be reserved for the most urgent targets, such as North Korean nuclear-missile launch preparations or a terrorist leader pinpointed at a safe house in Pakistan.

The Pentagon envisions using these niche weapons only in those instances in which the sole alternative would be launching a nuclear weapon.

Given the limited role of conventional prompt global strike, "it makes economic and technical sense to take advantage of the existing submarine infrastructure," said Linton Brooks, a retired naval officer with extensive diplomatic and nuclear-complex experience. "If the United States is to develop prompt global strike, the Conventional Trident Modification is the best way to do it."

Lawmakers have largely supported the emergence of the prompt global strike mission. However, they have time and again nixed the idea of developing or fielding a modified Trident to carry out such attacks.

Congress has warned that if a converted Trident were loaded onto a U.S. nuclear-armed submarine, Russia or China might misinterpret a conventional launch and trigger a nuclear war. Rather, lawmakers have urged the Pentagon to develop land-based weapon systems for conventional prompt global strike, such as the Air Force Conventional Strike Missile, which might be more effectively verified and tracked by foreign powers.

With lawmakers resistant to the Trident conversion option, U.S. Strategic Command chief Gen. Kevin Chilton in 2008 made the Conventional Strike Missile his pick for the first prompt global strike system to be deployed, perhaps as early as 2015 (see GSN, Sept. 3, 2008; and July 1, 2009).

Pentagon officials have estimated that the cost to test and field the Air Force missile -- which is to ride aboard a futuristic hypersonic glider -- could reach $500 million. Given the per-missile price tag of roughly $100 million, defense leaders imagine that just a single weapon would be put on alert at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., with two additional held in reserve (see GSN, March 15).

Advocates of the Trident option, though, have not given up hope that a submarine-based conventional missile would eventually be fielded. Brooks, for one, rejected the idea that the proposed Navy weapon could be destabilizing.

"Because submarines are mobile, they can be operated in a way that launches will not appear to be directed at Russia," he told Global Security Newswire in an e-mail response to questions. Brooks added that Russian military officers have assured him that such launches would not be misinterpreted if Washington provided an hour's advance notice of any prompt global strike attack against a third nation.

Kristensen, who heads the Federation of American Scientists' Nuclear Information Project, said it appears that Congress wants to focus research funds instead on ground-based alternatives to the modified Trident missile.

"Congress may still have serious doubts about mixing nuclear and conventional ballistic missiles on submarines," he told GSN. "The slow pace of getting approval to develop and deploy prompt global strike ballistic missiles over the past decade is a reminder that, while such weapons may be attractive to some, making the case that they're actually needed, affordable and essential for national security is quite another matter."

Navy budget materials indicate it would cost a total $20 million to complete the study on conventional Trident, assuming Congress gave the green light for the initial $10 million Navy allocation.

If both the House and Senate ultimately agree to fund the Navy request, an additional $10 million in "matching funds" to finish the study might be provided in 2011 by Defense Secretary Robert Gates' office, which oversees a consolidated account for prompt global strike, according to one industry consultant who asked not to be named.

However, last week's Senate committee action to deny the conventional Trident request is just the first of a number of funding steps. The House Appropriations Committee has yet to vote on its defense subcommittee's version of the funding bill, so it is not yet known whether that panel will take similar or contrary action on the Conventional Trident Modification.

Once each chamber passes its defense appropriations bill, the legislation must be reconciled in a House-Senate conference and be signed by the president before becoming law.

Fiscal 2011 begins in slightly more than a week. Congress is widely expected to draft a continuing resolution that would allow government work to continue, pending passage of appropriations bills for the full year.

Meanwhile, the Senate Appropriations Committee did opt to fully fund the multiservice account that bankrolls a number of service efforts to develop prompt global strike systems, including the Conventional Strike Missile.

The Obama administration requested $239.9 million for this combined account, which would be used in fiscal 2011 for experiments with both winged and cone-shaped strategic delivery vehicles, according to the Senate appropriations report.

However, following a failed flight test in April, developmental plans and schedules for the Conventional Strike Missile are in flux.

The missile system has relied on the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle-2 -- developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency -- to carry the weapon to target at Mach 20 speeds. During the scotched test, the dart-shaped glider lost communications with mission control nine minutes into its flight and fell into the Pacific Ocean.

The cause of the crash has not yet been released, but a senior defense official said last month a test report would be completed soon (see GSN, Aug. 19).

According to defense sources, plans for the next HTV-2 flight test could slip at least nine months, pushing its eventual fielding further into the future.

With details of the anticipated HTV-2 program changes not yet released, though, the Senate appropriations panel fenced nearly one-quarter of the $239.9 million in prompt global strike funds from Pentagon spending.

"Not more than $189 million may be obligated until the Department of Defense provides the congressional defense committees the details of the restructured program, to include scheduled development efforts and flight tests for each technology under consideration, solutions being considered for weaponization, and the associated costs to complete the development program for each technology being explored," the lawmakers' report states.

The panel also said that, beginning with the fiscal 2012 budget request to be delivered next February, the administration must submit separate line items for each of the programs to be funded for prompt global strike, including the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle-2, the Conventional Strike Missile and the Army's Advanced Hypersonic Weapon.

If this provision becomes law, it would effectively reverse congressional direction that since 2007 has allowed the defense secretary's staff to exercise significant discretion in allocating funds for different efforts from a single prompt global strike account.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Gridlock

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 243
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #101 on: September 29, 2010, 01:45:03 am »
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,11154.0.html

Quote
"the Administration has also found a rationale for exempting CPGS from the Treaty limits entirely. Current R&D efforts have turned away from ideas like the Conventional Trident Modification — a non-nuclear SLBM — and toward new missiles that launch hypersonic glide vehicles. The article-by-article analysis  submitted along with New START strongly hints that these sorts of weapons would be “new kinds” of weapons other than ballistic missiles or bombers, and therefore not controlled by the Treaty"

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #102 on: November 04, 2010, 06:06:59 pm »
Back to sub launched again?

Air Force Study Eyes Return To Sub-Based Prompt Global Strike Capability

As the Air Force continues to flesh out options for its long-range strike family of systems, service leaders are revisiting the idea of mounting conventional warheads onto sub-based nuclear missiles and folding them into the LRS concept, a senior service official said this week.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It will be interesting to see if any "study" is made public. Also, this along with the AirSea Battle concept reflects a growing USAF/USN level of co-operation which is a response to the "no more big ticket weapon systems" the future is COIN.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #103 on: November 16, 2010, 06:37:22 pm »
Reason for HTV-2 crash from Aviation Week
     
DARPA Says HTV-2 Exceeded Control Limits

Posted by Graham Warwick at 11/16/2010 3:39 PM CST
DARPA says its Lockheed Martin-built HTV-2 hypersonic test vehicle was lost soon after launch on April 22 because higher-than-predicted yaw, which coupled into roll, exceeded the capability of the glide vehicle's body-flap control surfaces.

The HTV-2 had been launched from Vandenberg on a planned 3,000nm hypersonic flight toward Kwajalein in the Pacific to demonstrate aerodynamic and structural technology for prompt global strike. Contact was lost 9min after launch, and after the dart-like glider had separated from its Minotaur IV Lite booster.

The HTV-2 was programmed to reenter the atmosphere and then pull up to begin its hypersonic glide to a splashdown off Kwajalein. At the time, DARPA said telemetry indicated the vehicle had achieved controlled flight at over Mach 20 before contract as lost.

Now the agency says a six-month investigation has concluded the "most probable cause of the HTV-2 flight anomaly was higher-than-predicted yaw, which coupled into roll thus exceeding the available control capability" at the angle of attack the vehicle was programmed to fly for the speed and altitude at that point in the flight. The vehicle began a slow roll divergence that continued until it triggered the autonomous flight termination system.

The analysis concluded "knowledge of several key aerodynamic paramaters in this flight regime was limited", DARPA says, and the review broad has concluded "no major changes to the vehicle or software are required...Engineers will adjust the vehicle's center of gravity, decrease the angle of attack flown and use the onboard reaction controol system to augment the vehicle flaps" before the second HTV-2 flies in late 2011.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 589
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #104 on: November 16, 2010, 07:14:40 pm »
The full (1 page) DARPA press release is at: http://www.darpa.mil/news/2010/HTV-2ERBReviewRelease.pdf.

It includes the following line: "The flight also demonstrated successfully the first ever use of an autonomous flight termination system" so not a failure after all ;)

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #105 on: November 22, 2010, 01:12:04 pm »
From Insidedefense.com:

DOD Eying New Investments In Prompt Global Strike For FY-12
The Defense Department is preparing to increase funding toward developing a conventional prompt global strike capability in its upcoming fiscal year 2012 budget plan, a senior Pentagon official said this week.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #106 on: December 16, 2010, 12:36:53 am »
Investments in Conventional Prompt Global Strike

Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance
Fact Sheet
December 13, 2010

(As compiled by the Department of Defense)

Key Point: The New START Treaty does not contain any constraints on current or planned U.S. conventional prompt global strike capability.

As part of the Administration’s efforts to strengthen deterrence and war-fighting capabilities, the United States is evaluating conventional prompt global strike (CPGS) capabilities to develop the capability to precisely strike time-sensitive, high value targets. Current Department of Defense (DoD) plans call for investing well over $1 billion for research and development of possible CPGS capabilities over the next five years (fiscal years 2011 to 2015).

DoD is currently conducting a study of long range strike options, including those that would provide CPGS capabilities. The results of this study will be reflected in the Department’s Fiscal Year 2012 (FY 2012) budget submission.

In August 2010, the Department submitted the Review of Fiscal Year 2010 Conventional Prompt Global Strike Concepts Report to Congress, which reviewed the CPGS concepts funded in the FY 2010 President’s budget request ($165.6 million). FY 2010 expenditures focused on the development and demonstration of technologies that could support a CPGS system deployed in the continental United States. (Submarine-based capabilities are also under consideration.) Current efforts include the following:

    * Hypersonic Technology Vehicle-2 (HTV-2) Technology Experiments. DoD will invest $308 million from FY 2003 through FY 2011, for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop the HTV-2 and complete two flight experiments. Costs associated with updates resulting from the first flight last April have not been finalized.

    * Conventional Strike Missile (CSM). DoD plans to invest $477 million from FY 2008 through FY 2013, for the Air Force to complete the CSM operational demonstration.

    * Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW) Technology Experiment. DoD will invest $180 million from FY 2006 through FY 2011 for the Army to complete the AHW flight experiment.

The New START Treaty allows the United States to deploy CPGS systems, and does not in any way limit or constrain research, development, testing, and evaluation of such concepts and systems, which offer the prospect of striking any target in the world in less than an hour. Intercontinental ballistic missiles with a traditional trajectory would be accountable under the Treaty; however, the Treaty’s limits would accommodate any plans the United States might pursue during the life of this Treaty to deploy conventional warheads on ballistic missiles. Further, the United States made clear during the New START negotiations that we would not consider non-nuclear, long-range systems, which do not otherwise meet the definitions of the New START Treaty (such as boost-glide systems that do not fly a ballistic trajectory), to be accountable under the Treaty.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Bolding mine. Of course the key words are current and planned PGS systems. Obviously if the US simply puts conventional warheads on an ICBM (ceteris paribus) is will count against START totals and therefore restrict the number of total "nuclear" capable launchers left available for the deterrent mission.

Although the investment in these systems is welcome, the counting provision should be taken out of a strategic weapons treaty. It would be easy, IMHO, to say we will deploy conventional PGS missiles at certain locations and they will be open to 24/7/365 inspections to insure they are conventional.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2010, 12:38:47 am by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #107 on: December 16, 2010, 01:43:45 am »
The AHW flight demo is still proceeding, but it seems that the AHW Hypersonic Glide Body and Kill Vehicle are now candidate payloads for the AF Conventional Strike Missile. Interestingly enough, the CSM already has a RV, the Payload Delivery Vehicle, which has a warhead that has already been static fired several times. The Army vehicle is now positioned as an Alternative Payload Delivery Vehicle - there are hints that the AHW vehicle is much closer to a finished product than the Air Force PDV, even though it seems that the Air Force PDV is based on an existing design (HTV-1?).

An air launched AHW derived system would circumvent old START, but that doesn't seem to be on the drawing boards.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #108 on: December 19, 2010, 04:18:46 pm »
The AHW flight demo is still proceeding, but it seems that the AHW Hypersonic Glide Body and Kill Vehicle are now candidate payloads for the AF Conventional Strike Missile. Interestingly enough, the CSM already has a RV, the Payload Delivery Vehicle, which has a warhead that has already been static fired several times. The Army vehicle is now positioned as an Alternative Payload Delivery Vehicle - there are hints that the AHW vehicle is much closer to a finished product than the Air Force PDV, even though it seems that the Air Force PDV is based on an existing design (HTV-1?).

An air launched AHW derived system would circumvent old START, but that doesn't seem to be on the drawing boards.

Any dimensions available for the Conventional Strike Missile or is this going to be the generic name for any missile carrying a conventional warhead such as the Minotaur IV that launched the HTV-2? 
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #109 on: December 19, 2010, 04:40:52 pm »
Any dimensions available for the Conventional Strike Missile or is this going to be the generic name for any missile carrying a conventional warhead such as the Minotaur IV that launched the HTV-2? 

"Integrated PDV vehicle with Minotaur IV Lite launch vehicle and conduct one operationally relevant land impact flight test demonstration"

"... finalize design concept for the CSM Payload Delivery Vehicle to include thermal protection materials, guidance systems, mission planning, and command and control; complete qualification of a Minotaur launch vehicle for a CPGS mission analysis of launch system infrastructure requirements utilizing other ballistic missile propulsion programs, and mature/demonstrate technologies associated the high speed demonstration of conventional munitions. The available resources for this sub-project will be utilized to procure the PDV, warhead and booster to support the planned CSM weaponized flight test."

I don't think it's set in stone that Minotaur IV Lite will be CSM, but that is what all the other components are being tested and validated against.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #110 on: March 02, 2011, 01:13:19 pm »
From Danger Room:

A few years back, the military came up with the bright idea of swapping out the nuclear warheads on some of America’s land- and sea-based ballistic missiles for conventional explosives, transforming city-obliterating rockets into so-called “Prompt Global Strike” systems capable of taking out terrorist targets anywhere in the world just hours from the word “go.”

There was just one problem: The “strike-anywhere” missile was a nightmare for diplomats and lawmakers. Upon launch, a non-nuclear ballistic missiles looks the same as a nuke to other nations’ radars. There was no way Russia, China or anyone else would know that America was firing a non-nuclear missile to take out a terrorist camp — as opposed to, say, starting World War III on a whim.

Proposals that the United States install special communications channels to alert nuclear powers in advance of any non-nuclear launch pretty much undermined the whole “prompt” aspect of the weapon.

Now the Air Force thinks it has a solution that makes everyone — Congress, the State Department and the Pentagon — happy. The flying branch wants to ditch the ballistic missile aspect of Prompt Global Strike and replace it with a hypersonic glider air-launched from a heavy bomber, like any of the Air Force’s current non-nuclear cruise missiles. That way nobody can mistake the weapon for a nuke.

Even though the prototype crashed during its first test flight last year, the Air Force is eying the Mach-20 Falcon Hypersonic Test Vehicle as the basis for the new strike missile. “Our focus is on boost-glide capabilities, including the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle concept,” Maj. Gen. David Scott said this week. “We have no plans for conventionally-armed sea-based missiles such as a [Navy] Conventional Trident modification or conventionally-armed ICBMs.”

The gliding missile has the extra advantage of fitting seamlessly into existing operations. The Pentagon hasn’t used non-nuclear ballistic missiles in many decades, but cruise-missile launches are routine. The only difference between an armed hypersonic glider and the Air Force’s existing Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile would be range: a B-52 carrying armed gliders could fire the missiles thousands of miles from their targets and still take them out in just minutes’ time.

As a modest proof-of-concept, the Air Force successfully test-launched its much smaller and less speedy X-51 hypersonic cruise missile, pictured, from a B-52 in May last year. For its part, the doomed HTV test in April, was not the complete wash it appeared to be at the time. In November, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency announced it had figured out what downed the glider — a flight-control “wobble” — and had prepared fixes for the next HTV test, slated for this summer.

The re-imagined Prompt Global Strike missile will complement the Air Force’s planned new stealth bomber, though it’s not clear the new bomber will actually carry the missile. Instead, the missile and the bomber will form what the Air Force describes as a “family of systems,” meant to preserve U.S. strike capability not only against terrorist targets, but also against well-defended potential enemies such as China.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This story is confusing to me. Its talks about the failed HTV-2 test but that was on a Peacekeeper (Minotaur IV) booster, is that not really a conventional ICBM. Does that mean they will call it a "ballistically launched glide weapon"? But they say the HTV-2 will complement the new bomber but not necessarily be launched from it?

The one additional comment I would make is that the DOD is trying to make the State Department happy (along with the politicians and others) The only way to make the current State Department happy would be total disarmament IMHO.

I was hoping that a conventional ICBM would help maintain the solid rocket, RV and warhead energetics industrial base as is looks like we won't see a new nuclear ICBM until after 2020. Daniel Goure of the Lexington Institute said prompt global strike would be a really good way to promote the development advanced missile technology with the development of a brand new missile.

Where is OBB to talk about Tribal Knowledge again. Are we twenty years away from losing the ability to produce advanced weapon systems in certain sectors?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #111 on: March 02, 2011, 04:12:33 pm »
Now the Air Force thinks it has a solution that makes everyone — Congress, the State Department and the Pentagon — happy. The flying branch wants to ditch the ballistic missile aspect of Prompt Global Strike and replace it with a hypersonic glider air-launched from a heavy bomber, like any of the Air Force’s current non-nuclear cruise missiles. That way nobody can mistake the weapon for a nuke.

This sounds familiar....
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3721.msg106396.html#msg106396

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #112 on: March 02, 2011, 11:50:05 pm »
From Defense News:

Conventional ICBM Still an Option: Schwartz
By DAVE MAJUMDAR
Published: 2 Mar 2011 17:25

Is the U.S. Air Force considering a conventionally tipped ICBM or not?

This morning, the service's top uniformed officer said yes - that such a missile, along with a hypersonic glider, were options for the service's Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) portion of its nascent Long Range Strike (LRS) family of systems. "We don't know yet. The less challenging solution to that demand signal clearly is a conventional ICBM application or [Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile]. There are complications with that, which are pretty self-evident," Gen. Norton Schwartz said at a March 2 conference hosted by Credit Suisse. "The hypervelocity test vehicle is another potential solution, which is much less mature obviously. We have another test coming up. We'll see how that one goes." Schwartz said the Air Force would focus on the long-range stealth bomber and stand-off cruise missile as part of an integrated family meant to defeat anti-access and area-denial threats. His comments came one day after Air Force science and technology director Stephen Walker told a Congressional hearing that a conventionally tipped ICBM was indeed an option.

But that followed conflicting statements by other Air Force generals. On Feb. 26, Maj. Gen. David Scott, who directs the Air Force's operational requirements, said, "We have no plans for conventionally armed sea-based missiles such as Conventional Trident Modification or conventionally armed ICBMs. Our focus is on boost-glide capabilities, including the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle concept." That followed a Feb. 17 interview in which Scott said, "Conventional Prompt Global Strike, which is the conventional Trident missile and it's the conventional strike missile; it's the things that we in the Air Force are working very closely with, with the hypersonic test vehicle that you've seen in the newspapers." At the Feb. 17 Air Force Association convention in Orlando, Fla., service vice chief Gen. Philip Breedlove had also said that a conventionally tipped missile such as a modified Trident was under consideration.

Analysts have called conventionally tipped ICBMs potentially very dangerous because it could be mistaken for a nuclear attack by other powers. "It's very expensive, and it's potentially very dangerous," said Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, Arlington, Va.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternate title of my last two posts, "Air Force Seeks to Confuse Everyone About Prompt Global Strike Plans".  :D
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plus DARPA's Arclight project - Standard Missile converted to surface to surface range 2000 km

The ArcLight program will demonstrate the capability to engage tactical, long range, time critical threats. The goal of ArcLight is to design, build and flight test a boost/glide vehicle capable of carrying a 100-200 pound payload over a 2,000 nautical miles range in approximately 30 minutes. The operational version of the boost/glide vehicle will be launched from a Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) compatible booster stack.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like the US to convert a helicopter carriers large deck space to carry hundreds of Arclight missiles (or even a larger missile like ATK's Forward Based Conventional Strike missile) along with possibly hundreds of missiles for air defense.   
« Last Edit: March 03, 2011, 12:14:29 am by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #113 on: April 04, 2011, 07:07:07 pm »
Interesting programs from Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory:

Net-Centric Prompt Global Strike Planner

APL has developed a prototype of a prompt global strike planning net-centric application that uses a service-oriented architecture. This prototype provided a conceptual framework for future planners and demonstrates the feasibility of this type of application. Building on this concept, the DoD has tasked the Laboratory to develop a prototype Conventional Prompt Global Strike mission planning and analysis tool and directed that this effort be responsive to the acquisition and intelligence communities in addition to the operations planners. This tool will demonstrate development of courses of action for multiple system concepts and will also return visual, qualitative, and quantitative information regarding system performance, such as range, trajectory, accuracy, probability of damage, overflight, and collateral damage. This capability will assist in developing and assessing operational concepts, technology implications, and system concept capabilities for conventional prompt global strike missions.

Conventional Strategic Global Strike

APL is assisting the Navy and Air Force in concept exploration studies for long-range, conventional (non-nuclear) strategic strikes. Examples include retrofitting an existing missile system with a conventional heavy penetrator and evaluating a two-stage ballistic missile with a highly maneuverable reentry vehicle (RV). Such an RV could improve accuracy, extend system range, and mitigate collateral damage effects from spent boosters. Testing these systems will be complicated by the enhanced aerodynamic performance of the RV. The Laboratory assisted the Navy in evaluating potential range sites for demonstration flights for these concsubmarineepts. Missile designs were developed and flights were simulated to evaluate the feasibility of achieving a land impact.

Emerging Missions and Alternate Payloads for SSGN Submarines

APL is assisting the U.S. Navy’s Strategic Systems Programs in the study, development, and fielding of SSGN Large Diameter Tube Payloads. The SSGN’s large payload capacity and persistent stealth enable a wide range of missions to be conducted. APL’s contribution includes conducting payload and payload integration trade studies, providing specialty and systems engineering support, and supporting land-based, in-water, and at-sea testing and evaluation efforts.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #114 on: April 04, 2011, 07:28:33 pm »
I want to see Arc Light go foward.  I'm convinced this will give the next step up in flexibility and lethality.  (If it just works and we can buy them in Tomahawk-like quantities.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #115 on: April 04, 2011, 07:40:47 pm »
I want to see Arc Light go foward.  I'm convinced this will give the next step up in flexibility and lethality.  (If it just works and we can buy them in Tomahawk-like quantities.)

The warhead size seems small but if you combine it with research being done with advanced nano-energetics some believe (NAS Report on Energetics) can pack 10X the punch of today's warheads you would have a nominal 1000 to 2000 pound bomb in a 100 to 200 pound package.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline SOC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1168
  • APA Contributor
    • IMINT & Analysis
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #116 on: April 04, 2011, 08:21:32 pm »
I want to see Arc Light go foward. 

Somebody's about 40 years too late to that party  ;D

In reality a SSM variant of the Standard missile is a pretty smart way to go.  No chance of it being confused with an ICBM or SLBM launch, and you've got tons of potential launch platforms already in service.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #117 on: April 05, 2011, 04:37:58 am »
I want to see Arc Light go foward. 

Somebody's about 40 years too late to that party  ;D

Who got there first and with what?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #118 on: April 05, 2011, 05:06:11 pm »
I want to see Arc Light go foward.  I'm convinced this will give the next step up in flexibility and lethality.  (If it just works and we can buy them in Tomahawk-like quantities.)

The warhead size seems small but if you combine it with research being done with advanced nano-energetics some believe (NAS Report on Energetics) can pack 10X the punch of today's warheads you would have a nominal 1000 to 2000 pound bomb in a 100 to 200 pound package.

The warhead size is relatively small but it will be going significantly faster.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #119 on: April 05, 2011, 05:24:52 pm »
I want to see Arc Light go foward.  I'm convinced this will give the next step up in flexibility and lethality.  (If it just works and we can buy them in Tomahawk-like quantities.)

The warhead size seems small but if you combine it with research being done with advanced nano-energetics some believe (NAS Report on Energetics) can pack 10X the punch of today's warheads you would have a nominal 1000 to 2000 pound bomb in a 100 to 200 pound package.

The warhead size is relatively small but it will be going significantly faster.

I posted this in the "Future ICBM...." thread but your mention of speed reminded me of this quote:

"To be capable of exerting great influence on events ashore,” he says, “it would be helpful if a platform could do other than quickly export many kilograms of plutonium vast distances.” When a submarine-launched ballistic missile hits the ground at a “multi-Mach number,” he notes, it would “create a very wide, very deep crater — very close to the aim point.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What intrigues me is not the first part of the quote (which illustrates the power of speed in the kinetic energy equation) but the second part, "very close to the aim point"

It either intentionally or by accident tells how incredibly accurate our SLBM warheads are if the target can be withing the impact crater "without" any explosives.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #120 on: April 05, 2011, 05:53:11 pm »
Sometimes being in the crater is not enough.  I remember a photo from back in the 80's in an Air Force Magazine article of a superhard silo that had undergone a test.  The silo had been hardened to 50ksi and was shown protruding -intact- from the bottom of a crater formed by high explosives.   Granted, maybe if you're close enough you can make the crater deep enough to tip the silo over if nothing else but still. . .
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #121 on: April 05, 2011, 06:08:54 pm »
Sometimes being in the crater is not enough.  I remember a photo from back in the 80's in an Air Force Magazine article of a superhard silo that had undergone a test.  The silo had been hardened to 50ksi and was shown protruding -intact- from the bottom of a crater formed by high explosives.   Granted, maybe if you're close enough you can make the crater deep enough to tip the silo over if nothing else but still. . .

But with accuracy like that you wouldn't need more than "tens of kilotons". We should research and build low yield earth penetrating nuclear warheads, we could call them Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators...........oh wait nevermind  :-\
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #122 on: April 05, 2011, 06:39:49 pm »

What intrigues me is not the first part of the quote (which illustrates the power of speed in the kinetic energy equation) but the second part, "very close to the aim point"

It either intentionally or by accident tells how incredibly accurate our SLBM warheads are if the target can be withing the impact crater "without" any explosives.


"The E2 evaluation was conducted in October 2002 using a D5 missile. The modified Mk4 reentry body had an added flap actuator system for control and a GPS-aided Inertial Navigation System (INS). During a substantial part of reentry, GPS reception was lost owing to a plasma-induced blackout. Nevertheless, the flaps deployed and operated as predicted to provide three-axis flight control (roll, yaw, and pitch). Under flap control, the reentry body (RB; see footnote 5, above) was able to turn to its target, and guidance and control were sufficient to steer the RB to the target within several meters of the onboard navigation solution. In other words, the RB came within several meters of where the navigation system calculated that the target was located"

The E2 and LETB flight tests had inert warheads and had a CEP about that of a JDAM.
More interesting is what was proposed for CTM-2. Interesting little UAV stuffed in there.
« Last Edit: April 05, 2011, 06:47:36 pm by quellish »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #123 on: April 05, 2011, 06:54:08 pm »
A 6000lb penetrator for 2500nm is nothing to sneeze at. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline SOC

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1168
  • APA Contributor
    • IMINT & Analysis
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #124 on: April 05, 2011, 07:12:08 pm »
Who got there first and with what?

Arc Light?  B-52s?  Vietnam?  Maybe my humor needs work!  ;D

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #125 on: April 05, 2011, 10:58:55 pm »
A 6000lb penetrator for 2500nm is nothing to sneeze at. 

The largest (total) payload for CPGS I have heard of is 2000lb.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #126 on: April 06, 2011, 05:30:09 am »
A 6000lb penetrator for 2500nm is nothing to sneeze at. 

The largest (total) payload for CPGS I have heard of is 2000lb.

Look at the bottom pic you posted.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #127 on: April 06, 2011, 05:31:13 am »
Who got there first and with what?

Arc Light?  B-52s?  Vietnam?  Maybe my humor needs work!  ;D

That's definitely a groaner.   ;D
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #128 on: April 06, 2011, 06:51:17 pm »
quellish - Is there a report that goes with those two images you posted up the thread?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #129 on: April 07, 2011, 01:16:02 pm »
Pentagon Revises Prompt Global Strike Effort
Thursday, April 7, 2011

The U.S. Defense Department has elected not to incorporate standard ballistic missile system technology in the development of its conventional "prompt global strike" initiative, Arms Control Today reported in its April issue (see GSN, March 24). The White House alerted Congress to the decision in February. The Pentagon "at present has no plans to develop or field" ICBMs or submarine-launched ballistic missiles that would be tipped with conventional warheads and delivered "with traditional ballistic trajectories," states a Senate-mandated White House report. The possibility that ballistic missile technology would be used in the Pentagon effort to develop a non-nuclear alternative for quickly eliminating threats such as a WMD stockpile or a missile being readied for launch caused serious concern among members of Congress and in Russia. Critics worried that a U.S. launch of conventionally armed ICBM could be misinterpreted as an atomic attack, potentially resulting in a nuclear response from another nation.

The Pentagon has said it plans to maintain research into "boost-glide" technology that has a nonballistic flight path, reducing the chances that someone would misinterpret the weapon as a nuclear missile. Boost-glide technology employs nonstandard ballistic missiles to propel into space delivery systems that proceed to five times the speed of sound for more than 50 percent of their flight. Washington believes that these weapons could be identifiable to the Russians as non-nuclear. "[The] basing, launch signature, and flight trajectory (of these systems) are distinctly different from that of any deployed nuclear-armed U.S. strategic ballistic missile," the Obama administration document reads. The Defense Department is interested in acquiring a conventional prompt strike ability as the only weapons the United States currently possesses that can strike a target anywhere in the world in under 60 minutes are nuclear-armed ICBMs.

Th Bush White House had suggested fixing non-nuclear warheads to submarine-carried Trident ballistic missiles. However, congressional lawmakers stymied that effort due to worries that Moscow could mistake a conventional SLBM firing as a nuclear attack. Kremlin officials argue that any long-range weapon that could be used to strike Russian nuclear assets ought to be categorized as strategic. In the New START nuclear arms control talks, Moscow at first tried to prohibit the attachment of conventional warheads on fielded ballistic missiles. Obama administration negotiators, though dismissed the idea. The two sides instead agreed to include language in the new accord that says they are "mindful of the impact of conventionally armed ICBMs and SLBMs on strategic stability." The boost-glide weapons would likely be fielded on U.S. coastal installations such as Vandenberg Air Force Base in California or Cape Canaveral in Florida. As the Russian military is "capable of monitoring U.S. ICBM fields, and possibly (SLBM) deployment areas," according to the Obama report, Moscow could ascertain that no nuclear launch had taken place. Additionally, each missile class has a unique infrared identifier that would enable Russia to distinguish between a Trident ballistic missile and a missile used as a boost glide vehicle, the report says.

Pentagon officials are researching three boost-glide alternatives: the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2, the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, and the Conventional Strike Missile, according to Arms Control Today. The Defense Department for this fiscal year has sought $240 million for a conventional strike effort that encompasses the three alternatives. The Pentagon expects to spend roughly $2 billion from 2011 to 2016 for research and development of these options (Tom Collina, Arms Control Today, April 2011).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be interesting if they developed a very heavy lift missile that could carry substantial payload global distances. If you are relying on kinetic energy or conventional explosives than having multiple warheads would make more sense. This would invigorate the solid rocket industrial base and other key technology industries.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #130 on: April 07, 2011, 02:25:12 pm »
It would be interesting if they developed a very heavy lift missile that could carry substantial payload global distances. If you are relying on kinetic energy or conventional explosives than having multiple warheads would make more sense. This would invigorate the solid rocket industrial base and other key technology industries.

What USAF wanted to do was take HTV-1 and use it as a delivery RV that would deploy standard conventional munitions - CBUs, GBUs, SDBs, LOCAAS, etc. There are some indications that after HTV-1 was cancelled it lived on in another program. Interestingly enough, the CSM flight demonstration was to include a Payload Delivery Vehicle (RV) that had a "proven" design.

As far as boost glide weapons.... AHW is the only thing on the horizon that can fly the trajectories being proposed (using a STARS booster). AHW is somewhat derived from SWERVE.

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #131 on: April 07, 2011, 04:52:16 pm »
"The long thin rod warhead reentry physics phenomenology has seen limited experimental testing. The Navy performed a hypersonic rod experiment in 1993 flying 3 long (36” - 43"), thin (1” to 1 1/2"
tungsten rods on a D-5 warhead station. The missile was flown to a range of 4,000 nmi. Two of the rods used a carbon/carbon nose tip design with a carbon sleeve around the forward portion of the tungsten rod. One rod used a bare tungsten nose tip. One rod clearly impacted the target area at a velocity of approximately 14,000 ft/sec. One clearly failed to impact and the third was uncertain. The one that failed is thought to have been the bare tungsten nose rod as would be expected. Target impact accuracy was not part of this test. These results provide an initial indication that long thin rods can successfully transit the atmosphere at hypervelocities (velocities>l0,000 ft/sec)   and   impact   the   earth.   This   is   an   important   result   for   both   these concepts as well as the space delivered kinetic energy weapon described later in this report."

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA433762

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #132 on: April 07, 2011, 05:33:30 pm »
Sorry but I just have to say I love this site. I don't write it enough but thanks to members like quellish, Skybolt, OBB, SOC, sferrin, flateric and many others. You guys have doubled my knowledge of the different technologies I'm interested in  :D
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #133 on: April 07, 2011, 05:51:21 pm »
quellish - Is there a report that goes with those two images you posted up the thread?

Actually there is.  I was trying to find the Trident bus for Flateric and I saw one of those pics go by in a doc I was looking at.  :)

You can download the PDF for free right here:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12061
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #134 on: June 16, 2011, 07:17:25 pm »
House Committee Slashes Conventional "Global Strike" Funds
Thursday, June 16, 2011 By Elaine M. Grossman

Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday recommended a nearly 50 percent cut in funding for the development of conventionally armed, fast-strike weapons for the upcoming budget year (see GSN, June 10). If the panel's mark-up of the fiscal 2012 defense spending bill eventually makes its way into law, funds for the so-called "conventional prompt global strike" effort would total $104.8 million, a significant drop from the Obama administration's $204.8 million request. Under the effort, the Defense Department is developing a number of different attack weapon technologies that could eventually be capable of hitting targets halfway around the world with less than an hour's notice. Pentagon officials say a small number of these conventional arms are necessary as an alternative to using high-speed nuclear weapons in instances in which a surprise threat emerges thousands of miles away that must be struck rapidly, but where there are no U.S. aircraft or ships stationed nearby. This might include a North Korean ballistic missile being readied for launch or a terrorist leader spotted while on the move, defense officials explain.

The first such system to be fielded could be an Air Force Conventional Strike Missile, which would initially launch like a ballistic missile but then be capable of maneuvering to target at speeds exceeding Mach 5. An initial flight test of a key component of the missile -- a "hypersonic technology vehicle" -- ended in failure in April 2010 (see GSN, Aug. 19, 2010). A second airborne trial of the vehicle is slated for this August and a more advanced version is expected to undergo a flight test in fiscal 2012. House panel members moved to enact the $100 million cutback in the program after searching for savings throughout the defense budget, a committee aide told Global Security Newswire on Wednesday. The funds were reallocated toward ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere, as well as to "more important, higher priority programs," the staffer said. The congressional aide spoke on condition of not being named, lacking authority to address the issue publicly. A House Appropriations report on the new legislation did not offer an explanation for the reduction. The draft decrease in global strike funds is part of the committee's $530 billion appropriations measure for nonemergency defense spending in the coming fiscal year, which begins on October 1. The proposed package cuts $9 billion from President Obama's request, but offers a $17 billion increase over 2011 defense budget figures.

The appropriations legislation is expected to go to a House floor vote as early as next week. It follows the chamber's action late last month to authorize 2012 defense expenditures. Typically authorization bills deal with policy and programmatic matters, while appropriations legislation is necessary for the government to spend funds. The House Armed Services Committee's defense authorization bill, which passed in a 322-96 floor vote on May 26, recommended a small decrease in conventional prompt global strike funds. Trimming $25 million from the administration's global strike request, this House panel also issued a defense authorization report challenging the Pentagon's development strategy for the weapon systems. House members lauded the Defense Department for the "innovation and scientific discovery" associated with developing the Conventional Strike Missile, but said they were "also concerned about pursuing a weaponized missile system, or any material development decision, before demonstrating that the technology is feasible."

Defense officials want the Air Force missile effort to undergo a critical design review in 2012, a crucial step toward putting the so-called "boost-glide" weapon through the paces of a full operational demonstration. Bugs yet to be worked out in the cutting-edge technology effort include finding ways to prevent the weapon system from burning up as it zooms through the upper atmosphere, as well as developing a guidance system that can control the apparatus at such high speeds. Surmounting such steep technical challenges is not expected to come cheap. Air Force officials have estimated that the cost to conduct two full demonstrations of the first non-nuclear global strike missile could reach $500 million (see GSN, March 15, 2010).

The price tag for procuring three Conventional Strike Missiles -- one to put on alert and another two for back-up -- could be as high as $300 million, according to Defense officials (see GSN, Nov. 26, 2008). The initial fielding date has slipped from 2015 to possibly as late as 2017, according to service officials. Lawmakers last month raised the idea of finding cheaper and easier alternatives to the Conventional Strike Missile. "The committee is concerned about the affordability of [conventional prompt global strike] given the current budgetary environment," the House defense authorization report states. "Based on briefings by the [Defense] Department, the committee is aware of other potential conventional long-range strike capabilities that may be lower cost, carry less technical risk, and provide a capability sooner" than the Conventional Strike Missile, the report reads.

The panel said it "encourages a broader examination" of the alternatives for undertaking the long-range, fast-attack mission. The Defense Department has already begun to explore other, potentially more cost-effective options for prompt global strike that might be available in the near term, said a second House aide, who also requested anonymity. Debate is simmering inside the Pentagon over how best to pursue the mission, spurred by those "who don't want to put all their eggs in the HTV basket," said the staffer, referring to the futuristic hypersonic technology vehicle. The Senate Armed Services Committee is marking up its version of the 2012 defense authorization bill this week in closed session. That chamber's Appropriations Committee will take its stab at next year's defense funding bill after that. Once these two types of defense spending bills have passed in both chambers, lawmakers from the House and Senate will meet in conferences to hash out a single authorization bill and a single appropriations bill. The resulting legislation is then sent to the president for his signature or veto. During the current fiscal year, the Pentagon has opted to allocate the lion's share of its $239.9 million global strike budget on the Air Force hypersonic glide concept, spending $147 million to develop and demonstrate the technology, according to one Defense report.

The remainder is being spent on an Army effort to develop an alternative delivery vehicle, re-entry system and warhead; the development of a test range; and defense-wide studies on conventional prompt global strike. The Senate Appropriations Committee last September called on the administration to break down its lump-sum funding request for global strike into these different types of expenditures, beginning with the fiscal 2012 budget, but the Pentagon has not done so. Defense officials said they have not yet determined how they would split the 2012 funding, because such a decision is to be based on the results of this year's flight experiments. In its recent report, the House Armed Services Committee mentioned that it anticipates there will be some excess funds left unspent from fiscal 2011 appropriations for prompt global strike, and those could dollars could help make up for 2012 reductions.

Despite Pentagon descriptions of prompt global strike work as focusing on the Air Force and Army efforts, it appears that the Navy continues to hone a submarine-launched concept for the mission that has been repeatedly rejected by Congress. Navy budget documents for fiscal 2012 submitted to Congress show that the service this year is spending $10 million to study how a conventionally armed missile could be launched from nuclear ballistic-missile submarines. Lawmakers have moved to terminate Navy work on the so-called Conventional Trident Modification year after year, citing concerns that Russia or China might mistake the launch of a non-nuclear D-5 missile for the start of an atomic war, potentially setting the stage for a dangerous international crisis (see GSN, Sept. 22, 2010). Nonetheless, conceptual work on converting a number of Trident missiles for a conventional mission appears to proceed. Next year "a study on SSBN-based conventional prompt global strike options will be completed to address safety, security and surety issues, along with ambiguity issues as they relate to various sea-based designs," one Navy budget document states.

The service in 2012 hopes to estimate procurement costs for conventional Trident designs and lay out a possible acquisition schedule for the controversial system, according to the budget report. This information "is required to better understand the capabilities that could be delivered from naval platforms," the service states. Advocates of exploring alternatives to a conventional version of the submarine-launched missile, such as the Air Force Conventional Strike Missile, argue it would be better to field a weapon whose launch could not be mistaken for the onset of a nuclear war. The Conventional Strike Missile and similar long-range weapons could be made verifiable by foreign inspectors or spy satellites, and would follow a flight trajectory noticeably distinct from nuclear-tipped sea-launched ballistic missiles or ICBMs, according to advocates.
======================================================================
Taken black or mostly already there? (Hopefully)
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #135 on: June 24, 2011, 05:11:58 pm »
 Pentagon Readies Competition for "Global-Strike" Weapon Friday, June 24, 2011 By Elaine M. Grossman
Global Security NewswireWASHINGTON -- The U.S. Air Force is taking initial steps to launch a defense-industry competition for building a new missile capable of flying at hypersonic speeds and attacking targets anywhere around the world within 60 minutes of launch (see GSN, June 16).       


The Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center on May 31 solicited information from defense contractors on the technologies they might propose using for the service's future Conventional Strike Missile. The service "desires to understand the concepts, architectures and designs that will provide the capability to strike globally, precisely and rapidly" using non-nuclear weapons against high-priority, "time-sensitive targets," the Air Force said in a formal "request for information" posted online. Incoming Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently described the Conventional Strike Missile and other potential "conventional prompt global strike" weapons as "valuable" alternatives to launching long-range, nuclear-armed ballistic missiles against urgent targets. They would be most useful "in situations where a fleeting, serious threat was located in a region not readily accessible by other means," he told Congress. Military brass have said a small number of such weapons are needed in rare instances when, for example, a North Korean ballistic missile is being prepared for launch or a terrorist is spotted at a faraway safe house, and no U.S. warships or aircraft are situated nearby. A potentially key component of the new missile -- Lockheed Martin's Hypersonic Technology Vehicle-2 -- has experienced repeated developmental delays over the past few years, culminating in a flight demonstration failure in April 2010 (see GSN, Aug. 19, 2010).


Another test of the HTV-2 prototype -- a dart-like glider that would launch aboard rocket boosters, zoom through the upper atmosphere and careen into target at speeds exceeding Mach 5 -- is slated for August. That is to be followed up by a more complex flight test in fiscal 2012, according to defense sources. For the past several years, Lockheed Martin has been retained on a sole-source contract for this research and development work. When it comes to producing a deployable missile, though, the Pentagon expects to open up the program to potential competitors. Other big military contractors -- to include Boeing and Northrop Grumman -- are widely expected to propose alternative hypersonic technologies to compete against Lockheed Martin to build such a strike system.


The House Armed Services Committee last month issued a defense spending report that encourages the Pentagon to explore an array of solutions for the fast-attack mission. Lawmakers are seeking to reduce costs, decrease the risk of technological challenges, and offer a military capability sooner -- before a top-level Pentagon "critical design review" is conducted next year, according to the fiscal 2012 defense authorization report. Three days after the House panel issued this guidance, Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter wrote to key Armed Services Committee members to offer assurances he would open the conventional strike effort to the commercial market, but only after technological progress in the challenging mission area could be proven, according to the independent weekly Inside the Pentagon. "It is my intent to promote competition in all areas of [conventional prompt global strike] acquisition," Carter's May 20 letter reportedly states. "However, the timing for introduction of competition is critical and will be based on matured technology demonstrated by flight tests." An initial Conventional Strike Missile capability could be ready for fielding around 2020, according to industry officials interviewed this week. The Air Force by press time was unable to confirm the projected deployment date, which apparently has slipped from a previous fielding estimate of 2017 (see GSN, March 15, 2010). Just three years ago, the missile development effort was put on a fast track for early deployment by 2012, a goal that gradually evaporated as technical challenges arose (see GSN, Sept. 3, 2008). A rudimentary capability in the form of a single missile was to be put on alert at Vandenberg Air Force Base., Calif., with two backup systems held in reserve.


Current plans call for several missiles to ultimately be fielded -- perhaps three to five, according to one industry source -- but quantities would be capped because of the system's high cost and niche military mission. Early estimates were that each operational test of the technology could cost $250 million, and the first deployable missile could require $100 million to procure. "The Air Force is particularly interested in cost-reduction ideas" that could lead to an "affordable" Conventional Strike Missile, the service said in its new industry solicitation. For now, the Air Force is leaving open its options for the missile's propulsion system and the weapons it delivers.


The service will entertain "concepts involving new boosters, both solid and liquid, and a reusable booster system," it said. In testing, prototypes of the Conventional Strike Missile are using a so-called "Minotaur 4" propulsion system for ballistic launch, powered by retired ICBM boosters. More than half of the flight trajectory, the Air Force said, must be nonballistic -- meaning that it departs from the arc-shaped path of traditional long-range missiles -- helping distinguish the boost-glide system's launch from that of a nuclear-armed ICBM. A number of U.S. lawmakers and Russian leaders have warned against building conventionally armed ballistic missiles that, when fired, could be mistaken for the onset of an atomic war. The service is also "open to the use of dispense or nondispense concepts for the delivery of payloads to the target," according to the document. Whether the weapon will feature a single projectile or release submunitions will largely depend on the kinds of targets the Pentagon seeks to attack, industry officials say. For example, if the missile is to go after an adversary's deeply buried command center, a penetrating warhead could be necessary; alternatively, the missile might deliver off-the-shelf precision-guided munitions for striking above-ground structures or vehicles. Industry responses to the Air Force request for information are to be in the form of a "white paper" and a briefing -- lasting no longer than two hours, the service advised -- and are due by July 28.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Love to see a large heavy lift solid propellant missile able to carry a large conventional payload.

 
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #136 on: August 04, 2011, 11:43:13 am »
The Defense Department needs new weapons like the Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) capability despite the tight fiscal environment, a top military official said.
"I still think there is a need for Conventional Prompt Global Strike capability," said U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) chief, Air Force Gen. Gen. C. Robert Kehler during a teleconference with reporters on Aug. 3.
The CPGS program would be used to hit a handful of extremely valuable, fleeting targets anywhere in the globe in less than an hour. The only weapons that the U.S. currently has in its arsenal to hit such fleeting targets around the globe are nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles, Kehler said. 

"That's not a good position to be in," he said. "We would like to have the capability to be able to go after a time-critical target in a very short amount of time with a conventional warhead."
The implications of not being able to do so will depend on the situation, Kehler said, but the concept would be a valuable tool for national leaders.
"I believe that need will remain. What I can't predict is in the overall budget outcome is how we might have to prioritize at the end of the day."
Kehler said he does not know what the impact of the new debt ceiling deal reached between the Congress and the executive branch will mean for American strategic arsenal. He stressed, however, the need to avoid creating a "hollow force" as budgets come down.
Kehler noted that the previous consensus based on the nuclear posture review and the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) called for sustaining and modernizing the nuclear triad of bombers, ICBMs, and submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBM).
"That's a viewpoint I still believe is appropriate," Kehler said.
The most critical need, according to Kehler, is to modernize the "weapons complex" that builds and sustains the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The weapons complex had been underfunded in previous years, he said.
However, Kehler said the U.S. also needs to modernize its nuclear forces. The recapitalization is structured sequentially, with the need to buy new replacement ballistic missile submarines to replace existing vessels coming first. The second item in the sequence is buying the Air Force's new bomber, Kehler said.
Subsequently, the U.S. also has to look at what replaces the existing Minuteman III ballistic missile arsenal. An analysis of alternatives is already underway, Kehler said.
CPGS, Kehler said, would come somewhere within the midst of those other priorities. "It will be an interesting issue for us, I believe, to balance that against of these other needs," he said.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #137 on: November 14, 2011, 12:18:47 pm »
 U.S. Army to Test “Global Strike” Technology This Week
Monday, Nov. 14, 2011 By Martin Matishak
Global Security Newswire   

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Army on Wednesday will test missile technology that could eventually be incorporated into the development a conventional "prompt global strike" weapon, according to Defense Department officials (see GSN, Dec. 14, 2010).


Army Space and Missile Defense Command and Army Forces Strategic Command will conduct a flight test of the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, which is to use an advanced-technology glide body built to endure high-speed flight in the upper atmosphere en route to a target.


"This test is designed to collect data on hypersonic boost-glide technologies and test-range performance for long-range atmospheric flight," Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. Melinda Morgan told Global Security Newswire last week by e-mail.


She said the test scenario would focus on "flight performance of aerodynamics; navigation, guidance, and control; and thermal protection technologies."


The test vehicle is slated to be launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility on the island of Kauai, Hawaii, and is to fly to the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site, located more than 2,000 miles southwest on the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands.


The launch had been slated to take place on Tuesday but was delayed one day "due to scheduling conflicts with other events in the Pacific," according to Morgan, who did not elaborate.


The data gleaned from the test will be used by the Defense Department to develop future capabilities for conventional prompt global strike, she told GSN.


The Pentagon is interested in developing a nonnuclear, prompt-strike capability to attack a target anywhere around the world with just an hour's notice. This type of weapon might be used in the event that U.S. naval vessels or land-based aircraft are not located close enough to strike a target under urgent conditions, such as prior to an impending North Korean missile launch.


AHW technologies, if proven successful, might be incorporated into the Air Force Conventional Strike Missile, which could be the first such prompt-attack capability to be fielded (see GSN, June 24).
 
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #138 on: November 14, 2011, 06:32:32 pm »
http://www.govsupport.us/ahw/Docs/AHW%20Program%20FEA--30Jun11.pdf

The part people are probably mostly interested in:

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #139 on: November 14, 2011, 08:09:37 pm »
Anybody care to place a bet?   :P
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #140 on: November 15, 2011, 07:32:45 pm »
Anybody care to place a bet?   :P

Will this tell us who has the best engineers, Army, Air Force or DARPA?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #141 on: November 15, 2011, 07:43:10 pm »
Will this tell us who has the best engineers, Army, Air Force or DARPA?

Sandia is heavily involved in AHW, and the design leverages their experience with SWERVE and other vehicles.

From: http://www.smdc.army.mil/Contracts/D3I/D3I-IndustryDayBriefing1Mar2011v1.pdf

AHW Mission Statement:
"Support the Test and Warfighter Solutions Center Mission Objectives in the design, development, and flight test of the Hypersonic Glide Body, based on existing technologies
derived from the Sandia Winged Energetic Reentry Vehicle Experiment (SWERVE), the Tactical Missile System – Penetrator (TACMS-P), and the Strategic Target System (STARS), to demonstrate a possible solution to the Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) requirement"

Offline jjnodice

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 97
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #142 on: November 17, 2011, 06:25:51 am »
Looks like they had a successful test this morning:

http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=14920

Congrats to the Sandia and US Army team!


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #143 on: November 17, 2011, 07:10:38 am »
Sweet!  Now let's hope the X-51 and HTV2 teams can get their problems figured out.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #144 on: November 17, 2011, 07:29:53 am »
YAAAAAAA!!!! Awesome likes me some Prompt Global Strike  ;D Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Sandia work on early MaRV concepts?

Still think the US should build a new missile to use with both PGS and as a MMIII replacement, maybe but not likely.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2011, 07:32:09 am by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline jjnodice

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 97
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #145 on: November 17, 2011, 07:46:27 am »
Still think the US should build a new missile to use with both PGS and as a MMIII replacement, maybe but not likely.

If they can get the Navy to sign on to it for Trident II replacements you could have a "Joint Strike Missile" program... ;)




Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #146 on: November 17, 2011, 08:11:48 am »
Still think the US should build a new missile to use with both PGS and as a MMIII replacement, maybe but not likely.

If they can get the Navy to sign on to it for Trident II replacements you could have a "Joint Strike Missile" program... ;)





Maybe that will be the future?

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/10/21/a-joint-navy-air-force-ballistic-missile/
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

AAAdrone

  • Guest
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #147 on: November 17, 2011, 12:24:47 pm »
Another joint program...yawn.

On the serious side, I am glad the test was successful.  Prompt Global strike is an idea that REALLY needs to get off the ground for the US to maintain military dominance by being able to strike time-sensitive targets that would otherwise be IMPOSSIBLE to get to in time otherwise.  The government's already canceled too many programs.  They MUST keep this one.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #148 on: November 17, 2011, 01:01:49 pm »
I'm puzzled why it's the Army running this program.  The last long range weapon they had was the nuclear armed Pershing II of 20 years ago.  How would they deploy a system like this? :o
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #149 on: November 17, 2011, 01:25:25 pm »
There seems to be essentially an internal competition between the Air Force (Conventional Strike Missile) and Army (Advanced hypersonic Weapon), funded by DoD's Propt Global Strike Weapon program.   The Navy, of course, got shut down on Conventional Trident, and Congress appears dead set on making sure they don't get near the concept ever again.

http://www.spacenews.com/military/042610darpa-loses-contact-with-hypersonic-vehicle.html

Quote
The Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center is leading one development program called the Conventional Strike Missile. In addition, the Air Force will pick up where DARPA leaves off with HTV-2. In 2008 the service tapped Lockheed Martin to build a third HTV-2 aircraft that will carry a conventional weapon in a flight test......
 The Army Space and Missile Defense Command is leading a competing effort called the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, which also would use a hypersonic glider to deliver a conventional payload, but would have a shorter range than HTV-2 and thus have to be forward-deployed. The Advanced Hypersonic Weapon has not yet been flight tested, and Army spokesman John Cummings could not provide any details about the test plan.

Funding for the Army program is at least partially a Congressional mandate starting back around 2006, so it might be a pork barrel project made good.  There's a brief history of the program in a CRS study from earlier this year:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41464.pdf

Quote
Army Advanced Hypersonic Weapon

The Army is also developing a hypersonic glide vehicle, known as the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW). Like the HTV-2, the AHW would use a hypersonic glider to deliver a conventional payload, but would have a shorter range than HTV-2 and thus have to be forward deployed. It also would be based on a conical design, with winglets, rather than on the winged design of the HTV-2. Upon nearing a target, the weapon would be able to maneuver to avoid flying over third party nations, and would home in on target using precision guidance system. The Army has not yet conducted a flight test of the AHW. When it is tested, it is to launch from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii, using the Strategic Targets System (STARS) booster stack, which is derived from the Navy’s Poseidon ballistic missile. As was the case with the HTV-2, its flight is to take it to a target near Kwajalein Atoll.

Congress appropriated $1.5 million for the Army’s hypersonic glide body, or advanced hypersonic weapon in FY2006, and added $8.9 million in FY2007.70 DOD allocated $29 million of the combined fund for CPGS to the Army’s program in FY2008, $13.9 million in FY2009, and $46.9 million in FY2010. It has requested an additional $69 million for FY2011. DOD has indicated that this program is a “risk mitigation effort in support of the Air Force CPGS project” and is intended to “develop and demonstrate the capability of an Alternative Payload Delivery Vehicle (APDV) through a two-flight test schedule.” Current plans expect a flight test to occur in 2011.





Offline jjnodice

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 97
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #150 on: November 17, 2011, 06:58:51 pm »
I'm puzzled why it's the Army running this program.  The last long range weapon they had was the nuclear armed Pershing II of 20 years ago.  How would they deploy a system like this? :o

The Army concept is shorter range than the USAF?  More like an IRBM than ICBM?  If so it would have to be forward deployed.  I can imagine the uproar of deploying something like this in Europe. 

Politics aside, I am really glad something worked!  Keep the ball rolling!

AAAdrone

  • Guest
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #151 on: November 17, 2011, 09:51:00 pm »
Yes the AHW is a shorter range weapon and as such will have to be forward deployed.  As such there is a difference between the projects.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #153 on: November 18, 2011, 01:20:18 pm »
Good summation of the test:

 U.S. Hypersonic "Global Strike" Technology Successfully Tested Friday, Nov. 18, 2011   

The U.S. Army on Thursday carried out a successful initial test of a cutting-edge technology that might be incorporated into a non-nuclear "prompt global strike" capability that could be targeted anywhere around the world within an hour (see GSN, Nov. 14).


The Advanced Hypersonic Weapon test vehicle was fired by means of a three-stage booster system at 6:30 a.m. from the Pacific Missile Range Facility on the island of Kauai in Hawaii. The vehicle stayed inside the earth's atmosphere, traveling at hypersonic speeds toward its programmed destination point at the Reagan Test Site on the Kwajalein Atoll, according to a Defense Department press release.  For the initial trial flight of the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon glider technology, the aim was to gather "data on hypersonic boost-glide technologies and test range performance for long-range atmospheric flight," the Pentagon said. The test mission emphasis was "aerodynamics; navigation, guidance, and control; and thermal protection technologies," the release states.


The glide test vehicle was monitored throughout the test by U.S. military assets on land, at sea, in the sky and in space. Information gathered from the trial will be utilized by the Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command to design and build new hypersonic weapons that employ boost-glide technology (U.S. Defense Department release , Nov. 17). Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. Melinda Morgan told the Associated Press that it took the test vehicle less than 30 minutes to travel roughly 2,300 miles from Kauai to the Kwajalein Atoll (Associated Press/Google News, Nov. 17). A previous test of another experimental non-nuclear prompt global strike technology in August was unsuccessful. In that attempt, a different kind of test vehicle -- the Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle-2 designed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency -- made an unplanned splashdown in the Pacific Ocean after the glider experienced a flight anomaly (see GSN, Aug. 18).


Unlike the Thursday test of Advanced Hypersonic Weapon vehicle, the Falcon vehicle was programmed to travel much farther -- 4,100 miles, Wired noted. The vehicle tested this week employs a conical design that has been around for decades and can travel up to 6,100 miles an hour or at Mach 8 speed. Not much is known about what happens when an object is flying through the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds and the only real way to learn about what takes place is to actually conduct flight launches, the publication noted.


"You have to go fly," former Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Gen. James Cartwright said. "You have to open up the envelope of knowledge. The Air Force and DARPA researchers are jointly studying the aerodynamics involved in hypersonic flight. The Army test could help the Pentagon determine if a carbon composite coating applied to the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon would enable such vehicles to withstand the intense heat generated by traveling at eight times the speed of sound, according to Wired (Noah Shachtman, Wired, Nov. 17)
 
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #154 on: December 30, 2011, 12:13:57 am »
Congress Trims Fiscal 2012 Prompt Global Strike Funding:

Despite a reduction in the Pentagon's budget request for the development of prompt global strike technology in this fiscal year, Congress committed some $179 million for these activities in the final version of the Fiscal 2012 defense appropriations legislation. In the conference report accompanying this bill, lawmakers said they cut the Defense Department's $204 million request by $25 million "based on program delays caused by two consecutive flight test failures" of DARPA's Hypersonic Technology Vehicle-2.

The most recent HTV-2 flight test was in August. However, they said they "remain supportive" of PGS development. They stipulated that the funding reduction should not be at the expense of the Army's Advanced Hypersonic Weapon program that conducted a successful flight test in November. PGS is a concept under which the United States is able to strike at any high-value target on the globe within about one hour by using weapons like ultra-fast missiles. Congress rolled the defense spending legislation into an omnibus bill, the 2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act, that President Obama signed into law on Dec. 23.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8610
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22549

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #157 on: March 16, 2012, 06:31:39 pm »
 U.S. Navy Brass: No Technical Fixes to Avoid Ambiguous Missile Launches
 March 16, 2012 By Elaine M. Grossman Global Security ewswire   

The Virginia-class attack submarine USS Hawaii, shown in 2010.  Engagement with potential nuclear adversaries is likely required to avert any dangerous misinterpretations following the launch of a future conventionally armed ballistic missile from U.S. submarines, the Navy’s top officer said on Friday (U.S. Navy photo).  WASHINGTON -- No technical solutions exist that could alone prevent other major world powers from misinterpreting the launch of a U.S. conventional ballistic missile from a submarine as the onset of a nuclear war, the nation’s top Navy officer said on Friday (see GSN, Jan. 27). “I can see and I understand, as written,” lawmaker concerns about the potential for this sort of strategic ambiguity, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the chief of naval operations, told reporters at a question-and-answer session.  He said any resolution of these concerns would have to involve diplomatic engagement with Washington’s potential nuclear-weapon adversaries. Worries that a future Russia or China might respond to a misinterpreted missile launch with a catastrophic atomic salvo have led Congress to repeatedly prohibit the Navy from fielding a conventional version of its nuclear-armed Trident D-5 missile aboard Ohio-class submarines (see GSN, Sept. 22, 2010). The Defense Department early this year announced that it had asked the Navy to design a new, intermediate-range ballistic missile for so-called conventional “prompt global strike” missions from future Virginia-class attack submarines.  The idea is to develop the capability to attack an enemy anywhere around the world on just one hour’s notice, without resorting to nuclear war. “The question then is, so how do we assure” it would not create instability during a crisis, said Greenert, who rose to his service’s top uniformed post last September.  “That is probably beyond technical; it’s now how is our policy, our understanding, and the protocols with the country [detecting a launch], such that we could be convincing of that.” The Navy official added that such foreign policy and diplomatic issues are beyond his area of expertise.
 
Greenert’s comments diverge somewhat from assertions on the matter made recently by Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  The Army general said that by giving the new conventional missile a flight profile that could be distinguished quickly from a nuclear-armed Trident launch, a nuclear response based on miscalculation could be averted.  Compared to the earlier Trident missile-based concept, “the technology and therefore the trajectory that would be required to deliver it” would be different for the medium-range missile now on the drawing boards, Dempsey told reporters at a Jan. 26 press conference.  “There's [also] the speed at which these delivery systems can move.”  He added: “You can lower the trajectory and therefore avoid the confusion you're talking about in terms of it being mistaken for an ICBM with a nuclear warhead.”  Dempsey did not address diplomatic dimensions of such a military operation.  Critics were immediately skeptical of Dempsey’s remarks, arguing that the unprecedented fielding of a ballistic missile on a stealthy attack submarine would do little to address unease about potential adversaries becoming confused in the heat of crisis.  “Even a conventional intermediate-range ballistic missile launched from a converted Virginia-class attack submarine could be misinterpreted because its compressed trajectory would look much like a nuclear D-5 launched in a compressed trajectory as part of a first strike,” atomic weapons expert Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists said at the time.  Speaking on Friday, Greenert also divulged more about the potential modifications required for the Virginia-class submarines to accommodate a ballistic missile than his service had done to date.  “A step in that direction will be to put the new payload tube that you see in the Block 3” attack submarines authorized for Navy procurement in fiscal 2009 through 2013, the service chief said, noting that the missile’s development is “in the very rudimentary stages” and “more conceptual than specific.”  The Navy is currently buying Virginia-class attack vessels at a rate of two per year, with incremental upgrades to the submarine’s design expected on each new procurement “block.”  Eight Block 3 submarines, beginning with the 11th Virginia-class hull, will include new wide-diameter launch tubes.  The design for next set of boats in the series, Block 4, has not yet been finalized.  In the Block 3 vessels, each of two new launch tubes would initially be able to accommodate six Tomahawk conventional cruise missiles, replacing 12 narrow vertical launch tubes for the same number of Tomahawks aboard earlier versions of the submarine.  These new launch tubes, located on the submarine bow, could alternatively accommodate one -- and maybe more -- of the new medium-range ballistic missiles, defense sources have told Global Security Newswire.  This configuration could permit a total of two or possibly more ballistic missiles in each modified submarine.  The new launch tubes will each have an 87-inch diameter, Greenert said.

 
“That kind of size … that’s your start for at least capacity to put a [ballistic] missile the size that you’re talking about, to get the range for that,” he said.  “In the follow-on, it’s within our budget, we have the ‘Virginia payload module,’” Greenert went on to say.  “[It’s] a similar capability, only you can get seven now because you’re aft of the sail.  But just the configuration of the hull allows you to get that seventh one in the middle, [with] six on the outside.”  “So it’s the development of that,” Greenert said, “that I think could perhaps -- and we’re really in the early conceptual stages of that -- lead to a conventional strike payload.”  The admiral said it was too early to know how many medium-range ballistic missiles would fit in each of the new launch canisters.  “If technology brings a very dense rocket propellant such that you can really get great range, then maybe you do get more than one,” Greenert said.  “It’s really about the technology and the range that will be necessary for when we define that ballistic missile, should we define it.”  The “first step” would be to ask, “Do you have anything this could get in? Yes, no, maybe so,” he said.  “This tube might be it.”  The chief of naval operations came close to ruling out that the new Virginia payload modules would be built large enough to house a Trident D-5 missile, an idea that some have proposed as a potentially cheaper alternative to building from scratch a replacement for today’s aging Ohio-class nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines.  Upon launch, today’s D-5 missiles -- as opposed to some future version that might be developed -- “are ejected from the tube, they burst through the water, they ignite,” Greenert said.  “And so that gas generator, that entire launching system, that’s pretty big.”  A missile “of that capacity” would “clobber just about everything else you have in the Virginia class as we now know it,” he said.  The only way around that design challenge would be to extend the body of the existing attack submarine, “and now you’re into the hydrodynamics on a new module [for] an extended Virginia-class [submarine],” he said.  “A Trident D-5 is likely too big.” 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting quote......"If technology brings a very dense rocket propellant such that you can really get great range, then maybe you do get more than one,”..............
Wonder if there is a "dense propellant" being worked on now for this program?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1169
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #158 on: March 18, 2012, 07:36:49 am »
Appears some folks still don't understand that all ballistics can and would likely be interpreted as nuke strikes.   :o
Therefore, non-ballistic, stealth and retreiveable LRS family of systems including hypersonic cruise combined w/ potentially maritme hypersonic cruise missiles utilizing dense propellants remain the best  "promptness" solution. This is not to mention that in the future ballistics will become vulnerable to shoot down even outside Russia, China.


 Nanotechnology continues to advance propellants.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #159 on: March 18, 2012, 08:13:06 am »
Appears some folks still don't understand that all ballistics can and would likely be interpreted as nuke strikes.   :o
Therefore, non-ballistic, stealth and retreiveable LRS family of systems including hypersonic cruise combined w/ potentially maritme hypersonic cruise missiles utilizing dense propellants remain the best  "promptness" solution. This is not to mention that in the future ballistics will become vulnerable to shoot down even outside Russia, China.


 Nanotechnology continues to advance propellants.

How many SCUDs were interpreted as nuke strikes?  How is nanotechnology advancing propellants?  Can you give me an example of solid propellant that uses nanotechnology?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #160 on: March 18, 2012, 04:49:41 pm »
http://www.nanotech-now.com/news.cgi?story_id=35017


This stuff does, nanoscale aluminum powder and ice. Nanoscale particles let you do a lot of new things in terms of creating explosive/rocket propellent compounds. Because the particles are so much smaller they burn more energetically, and importantly for rocket motors you can control the burn rate much more precisely to avoid wasting energy you already had. It doesn't seem likely that widespread use of such rocket propellents is going to happen any time soon, but explosives with nano technology are pretty advanced now.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1169
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #161 on: March 18, 2012, 05:21:54 pm »
The Soviets designed SCUDs to carry various WMD including nukes. Even the smallest ballistic to near ballistic missiles such as the US Dave Crocket (small enough for the launcher mount on a jeep) were designed to carry nukes..

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #162 on: May 08, 2012, 11:56:07 pm »
 House Panel Urges Competition for Conventional Prompt-Strike Weapons 
  May 8, 2012 By Elaine M. Grossman Global Security Newswire

    The U.S. Army last November conducts the first flight test for its Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, a technology seen as potentially useful in developing a capability for nonnuclear attack on any location in the world in under one hour.  A key congressional panel appears set this week to mark up legislation aimed at encouraging competition in meeting the mission goal (U.S. Army photo).


The U.S. Army last November conducts the first flight test for its Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, a technology seen as potentially useful in developing a capability for nonnuclear attack on any location in the world in under one hour.  A key congressional panel appears set this week to mark up legislation aimed at encouraging competition in meeting the mission goal (U.S. Army photo). 
 
WASHINGTON -- The House Armed Services Committee this week is expected to mark up a defense spending bill that encourages competition in the Defense Department’s “conventional prompt global strike” mission arena, among other initiatives (see GSN, June 24, 2011).  The panel’s Strategic Forces Subcommittee last month recommended full funding for global strike in its fiscal 2013 defense authorization bill, granting the Obama administration’s $110.4 million request. At the same time, the lawmakers pressed the Pentagon to pursue an array of technologies that might someday result in a fielded system.  Action on the bill by the full House Armed Services Committee is expected on Wednesday.  The panel’s Senate counterpart is slated to mark up its version of the bill on May 23, following subcommittee activity that begins the prior day.  Under the prompt global strike mission, U.S. military leaders hope to gain a capability to attack targets anywhere around the world with nonnuclear weapons on less than one hour’s notice. Currently, only atomic-armed ballistic missiles can reliably meet this challenging time constraint.  Defense brass has said that a small number of conventional prompt-strike weapons are needed for the highest priority and most urgent targets, such as a North Korean ballistic missile being readied for launch or a terrorist leader spotted at a safe house.  The legislative measure follows a pair of test failures and mounting questions about the way ahead for a key technology, the Defense Advanced Research Project Agency’s Hypersonic Technology Vehicle-2 (see GSN, Aug. 18, 2011).

 
HTV-2 flight tests in April 2010 and August 2011 resulted in crashes. Nonetheless, military engineers said valuable progress was made during the flight trials in understanding Mach 20 aerodynamics and refining the advanced technology.  The Air Force is developing a Conventional Strike Missile that is to feature on its front end a technology based on the hypersonic vehicle, but some defense experts have said the future of the service effort is now in doubt following the botched test flights. By contrast, the House panel noted, a first Army flight test of its Advanced Hypersonic Weapon last November was successful (see GSN, Nov. 18, 2011). The Army technology is widely seen as a potentially useful research and development tool, but still too futuristic for fielding anytime soon.  “The committee encourages the Department to continue cost-effective technology development and demonstration by leveraging the successful flight test of the AHW FT-1A glide body and by utilizing this ongoing program that can support prompt global strike acquisition programs across the Department,” the subcommittee report states.  Pentagon leaders signaled early this year that they hope to develop a new conventionally armed ballistic missile for Navy attack submarines (see GSN, Jan. 27). Details of the plans remain difficult to pin down, though.  In addition, some issue experts voice concern about whether Russia -- or someday China -- might misinterpret the launch of a conventionally armed ballistic missile from an undersea vessel as the first salvo in a nuclear war.  U.S. Ohio-class submarines continue to carry arsenals of Trident D-5 nuclear-armed ballistic missiles at sea.   It is unclear whether these worries about strategic ambiguity might prevent the Navy from developing the new missile for Virginia-class submarines.  Pentagon leaders have said they believe an effort at confidence-building and information-sharing with other world nuclear powers might allow for the Navy technology development program to proceed.  Yet, with the Defense Department seeming to cast about for a conventional prompt global strike weapon system suitable for deployment in the near- to mid-term, the House subcommittee said the Pentagon must take a fresh look at the possibilities.  “The committee encourages a broader examination of the trade space of CPGS capabilities and concepts to meet warfighter requirements,” according to the recent legislative report.  The panel commended a Pentagon commitment, made in May 2011, for “using industry competition for driving productivity and managing program risks and costs.” However, it remained uncertain what the next steps in conventional prompt global strike competition would be or when they would occur.  The House panel directed the Defense secretary to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by Dec. 1, “detailing how the Department plans to use competition and integrate verification and transparency measures as it develops and deploys CPGS capabilities.”
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline dark sidius

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 364
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #163 on: May 09, 2012, 12:23:05 am »
Where is gone the Hypersonic cruise vehicle? it was the best concept for prompt global strike. It was a mach 8 hypersonic plane abble to attack any-point on earth in 2 hours, and since 2 years there is nothing on it.

Offline DSE

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 444
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #164 on: May 09, 2012, 02:38:19 am »
Where is gone the Hypersonic cruise vehicle? it was the best concept for prompt global strike. It was a mach 8 hypersonic plane abble to attack any-point on earth in 2 hours, and since 2 years there is nothing on it.

HCV lead to the Blackswift program which was canceled following the FaCET high speed scramjet test at APTU and then morphed into the MoTr (Mode Transition) DARPA program. MoTR was  was canceled following a facility study/selection  and initial work on a tbcc/scramjet mode transition ground test. The last work somewhat related to to this which is going on is the TBCC LIMX test in the GRC 10x10 under the NASA Fundamental Aeronautics Hypersonics project TBCC discipline, which was zeroed out for FY13.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #165 on: May 09, 2012, 07:22:08 am »
Where is gone the Hypersonic cruise vehicle? it was the best concept for prompt global strike. It was a mach 8 hypersonic plane abble to attack any-point on earth in 2 hours, and since 2 years there is nothing on it.

HCV lead to the Blackswift program which was canceled following the FaCET high speed scramjet test at APTU and then morphed into the MoTr (Mode Transition) DARPA program. MoTR was  was canceled following a facility study/selection  and initial work on a tbcc/scramjet mode transition ground test. The last work somewhat related to to this which is going on is the TBCC LIMX test in the GRC 10x10 under the NASA Fundamental Aeronautics Hypersonics project TBCC discipline, which was zeroed out for FY13.

In other words, business as usual for high speed air-breathing flight in the US.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline dark sidius

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 364
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #166 on: May 09, 2012, 08:56:00 am »
I can't understand what is the problem with this programms, very good advance on Facet and after that nothing, all is canceled? why may, be the work continue in the black world because facet work well.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #167 on: May 17, 2012, 07:05:22 pm »
  Inside the Pentagon - 05/17/2012     House Appropriators Fully Fund CPGS, Request New AHW Report       Posted: May. 16, 2012     The House Appropriations defense subcommittee has fully funded the Pentagon's multimillion-dollar request for a program designed to strike targets worldwide in under an hour and called for a report on the Defense Department's plans to capitalize on a successful test.
In its fiscal year 2013 report, released this week, the panel calls for the defense secretary to provide a report within 60 days of the bill becoming law that "plans for future development and testing" of the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon. This report should examine the program plan and funding allocation for FY-12 to FY-17 for Conventional Prompt Global Strike and the Navy strategic systems programs office, the legislation states.
This Army's Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW) had a successful test in November. Appropriators note that they plan to follow this program as it advances.
Like House authorizers, House appropriators have recommended fully funding the department's $110.4 million CPGS request. The House Armed Services Committee's FY-13 defense authorization bill touts AHW efforts and encourages DOD to "continue cost-effective technology development and demonstration by leveraging" the program. -- Jordana Mishory
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1169
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #168 on: May 17, 2012, 08:20:37 pm »
As the Falcon HTV-2 appears to have a Pull-up & Glide phase after re-entry it may be explained to Rus PRC etc. that this vehicle is not a traditional ballistic and therefore not the beginning of the end... 45min maybe different then 30min.

Offline jjnodice

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 97
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #169 on: May 24, 2012, 12:57:36 pm »
  Inside the Pentagon - 05/17/2012     House Appropriators Fully Fund CPGS, Request New AHW Report       Posted: May. 16, 2012     The House Appropriations defense subcommittee has fully funded the Pentagon's multimillion-dollar request for a program designed to strike targets worldwide in under an hour and called for a report on the Defense Department's plans to capitalize on a successful test.
SNIP

Is there any word of how the budget appropriation was broken out?  Such as how much is being allocated for the USAF Conventional Strike Missile?  Is funding for a third HTV-2 in this request or in DARPAs budget?

Or is there a link to the request?


Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #170 on: May 24, 2012, 01:26:21 pm »

Is there any word of how the budget appropriation was broken out?  Such as how much is being allocated for the USAF Conventional Strike Missile?  Is funding for a third HTV-2 in this request or in DARPAs budget?

Or is there a link to the request?

FY2012 and 2013 RDT&E descriptive summaries are available online, yes.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #171 on: June 01, 2012, 11:54:18 am »
  DOD Eyes Hypersonic Munition For F-22A, F-35 Use In A2/AD Operations        

The Air Force is rolling out early plans for a high-priority new capability called the High Speed Strike Weapon, an air-breathing, hypersonic precision round intended to improve the effectiveness of fifth-generation aircraft against anti-access, area-denial capabilities.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline dark sidius

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 364
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #172 on: June 01, 2012, 02:07:52 pm »
May be compatible with the new Bomber?

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #173 on: June 01, 2012, 03:02:22 pm »
DOD Eyes Hypersonic Munition For F-22A, F-35 Use In A2/AD Operations        

The Air Force is rolling out early plans for a high-priority new capability called the High Speed Strike Weapon, an air-breathing, hypersonic precision round intended to improve the effectiveness of fifth-generation aircraft against anti-access, area-denial capabilities.

https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=129942a86380453c656ded23b1a6a9e7&tab=core&_cview=0

http://www.atk.com/capabilities_defense/cs_ss_m_hhssw.asp

HSSW is different from the PGS programs:
"We are planning to initiate a technology demonstration effort in Fiscal Year 2013 to demonstrate a high speed capability option.  If successful, this High Speed Strike Weapon technology demonstration will be representative of an air-breathing hypersonic missile system with the capability to engage fixed and relocatable targets at extended ranges and survive the most stringent environments presented to us in the next decade.  Key technologies to be developed in the first phase of this effort include air-breathing hypersonic engines; advanced materials and structures; guidance, navigation and control for GPS degraded and denied environments; advanced sensors and seekers; and selectable effects warheads.  Note that the Department’s Conventional Prompt Global Strike program is developing related technologies, but would provide distinctly different capabilities than this effort."

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #174 on: June 01, 2012, 03:03:45 pm »
Given the plethora of cancellations and failures we've had the last two decades. . .I'll believe it when I see it.  Which will probably be never.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline George Allegrezza

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 778
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #175 on: June 01, 2012, 07:23:28 pm »
Looks a lot like ASALM redux.

Offline Mat Parry

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 403
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #176 on: June 02, 2012, 03:34:35 am »
HSSW would appear to be more suited to an X-47B type platform than F22 (and arguably F35). Still, with the money spent on the F22 & F35 you would want to get the maximum bang for your buck.
 

Offline dark sidius

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 364
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #177 on: June 02, 2012, 04:05:00 am »
Its very difficult to say where are this programm I think a lot of works made on this technology are classified.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #178 on: June 02, 2012, 06:18:00 am »
Looks a lot like ASALM redux.

Which has been cancelled on three different occasions - ASALM, SLAT, and now LRASM-B.  I think it's safe to write off this latest powerpoint as well.
« Last Edit: June 02, 2012, 06:30:55 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #179 on: June 02, 2012, 11:31:09 am »
Looks a lot like ASALM redux.

Which has been cancelled on three different occasions - ASALM, SLAT, and now LRASM-B.  I think it's safe to write off this latest powerpoint as well.

Sometimes when I read stories about the military asking for something quickly I often think - hope - there must be some new development in the black world that will translate into a 'real' white world program sooner rather than later. Naive?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #180 on: June 02, 2012, 11:40:07 am »
Looks a lot like ASALM redux.

Which has been cancelled on three different occasions - ASALM, SLAT, and now LRASM-B.  I think it's safe to write off this latest powerpoint as well.

Sometimes when I read stories about the military asking for something quickly I often think - hope - there must be some new development in the black world that will translate into a 'real' white world program sooner rather than later. Naive?

Given all the trouble they're having in the "white" world, I think our R&D system is fundamentally broken.  How many times have they given up almost without even trying?  Back in the 60s they were making progress all the time and took failures in stride.  Now if there's a shadow of the potential of failure it's "oh my god, try something else!".  Almost as if they think that if they keep doing that something will magically land on their plate that will deliver with no work involved.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline dark sidius

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 364
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #181 on: June 02, 2012, 03:13:58 pm »
I hope than in the black world the R and D system are better than the white world. There is few innovations we see in the white world since ten years.

Offline jjnodice

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 97
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #182 on: June 02, 2012, 07:19:31 pm »
I tried to dig into the HASC 2013 authorization. 

The CPGS discussion is on pages 71 and 83 of this document:

http://democrats.rules.house.gov/112/billreport/112_hr4310_rpt.pdf

The paragraph I have quoted below indicates Congress desires a shift emphasis from HTV-2 to AHW.

Quote
"The committee notes that while the first two HTV–2 tests were unsuccessful (though it provided meaningful data for review and concept development), the Army’s Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW) concept, developed in concert with the Sandia National Laboratory, was a success. The committee encourages the Department to continue cost-effective technology development and demonstration by leveraging the successful flight test of the AHW FT–1A glide body and by utilizing this ongoing program that can support prompt global strike acquisition programs across the Department."

I am reading that right?  How does that translate into $?  This document doesn't seem to show the breakout among the programs.
 
 I couldn't find anything on more AHW flights.  How many more were planned prior to this authorization??? 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #183 on: June 02, 2012, 07:32:39 pm »
I tried to dig into the HASC 2013 authorization. 

The CPGS discussion is on pages 71 and 83 of this document:

http://democrats.rules.house.gov/112/billreport/112_hr4310_rpt.pdf

The paragraph I have quoted below indicates Congress desires a shift emphasis from HTV-2 to AHW.

Quote
"The committee notes that while the first two HTV–2 tests were unsuccessful (though it provided meaningful data for review and concept development), the Army’s Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW) concept, developed in concert with the Sandia National Laboratory, was a success. The committee encourages the Department to continue cost-effective technology development and demonstration by leveraging the successful flight test of the AHW FT–1A glide body and by utilizing this ongoing program that can support prompt global strike acquisition programs across the Department."

I am reading that right?  How does that translate into $?  This document doesn't seem to show the breakout among the programs.
 
 I couldn't find anything on more AHW flights.  How many more were planned prior to this authorization??? 


As far as I can tell these two vehicles aren't remotely similar in capability.  Like saying, "these ATACMs are so effective, let's replace all our Trident missiles with them."   Gotta love politicians.  Has anybody even considered how the ARMY is suppose to use this thing?  I doubt it.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline jjnodice

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 97
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #184 on: June 02, 2012, 07:46:02 pm »
I agree.  The HTV-2 booster is a much larger vehicle than AHW and the HTV-2 has higher L/D than AHW which will give it more cross range capability for threat avoidance and overflight concerns. 

Not sure what the Army would do with it.  Maybe put it on a Redstone?  Ha! 

How about a navalized AHW?  That would offer a lot of flexibility, but for CONUS launch the HTV-2 design is what you want. 

I can applaud Congress for wanting to emphasize things that "work", however there is a need to "stick with it".   

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #185 on: June 06, 2012, 09:30:38 pm »
Investing in Hypersonics Test Infrastructure: The Senate Armed Services Committee has directed the Air Force to create a master plan outlining future requirements and proposed investment in hypersonics test infrastructure out to 2025, according to the report accompanying the Senate's draft version of the Fiscal 2013 defense authorization bill. The committee said it is concerned because of the "dated" and limited nature of the existing test facilities at a time when hypersonic weapon systems could play a significant role in overcoming the tyranny of distance in the Asia-Pacific region and in countering anti-access, area-denial challenges from potential adversaries. "The state of the nation's hypersonics ground test and evaluation facilities and workforce have not received adequate attention over the years" and they are "facing both threats of divesture as well as gradual decay," states the report, issued the first week of June. Therefore, the committee instructed the Air Force Secretary to conduct a study examining the ability of the service's air and ground test and evaluation infrastructure to support near- and far-term hypersonics development activities, and to incorporate the findings into the master plan.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline DSE

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 444
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #186 on: June 07, 2012, 01:29:50 pm »
As far as I can tell these two vehicles aren't remotely similar in capability.  Like saying, "these ATACMs are so effective, let's replace all our Trident missiles with them."   Gotta love politicians.  Has anybody even considered how the ARMY is suppose to use this thing?  I doubt it.


Not really an Army program. The A in AHW is Advanced not Army.

And while it may not have the exact same capabilities it also doesn't have some of the HTV-2's problems either.
« Last Edit: June 07, 2012, 01:52:49 pm by DSE »

Offline DSE

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 444
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #187 on: June 07, 2012, 01:32:58 pm »
Investing in Hypersonics Test Infrastructure: The Senate Armed Services Committee has directed the Air Force to create a master plan outlining future requirements and proposed investment in hypersonics test infrastructure out to 2025, according to the report accompanying the Senate's draft version of the Fiscal 2013 defense authorization bill. The committee said it is concerned because of the "dated" and limited nature of the existing test facilities at a time when hypersonic weapon systems could play a significant role in overcoming the tyranny of distance in the Asia-Pacific region and in countering anti-access, area-denial challenges from potential adversaries. "The state of the nation's hypersonics ground test and evaluation facilities and workforce have not received adequate attention over the years" and they are "facing both threats of divesture as well as gradual decay," states the report, issued the first week of June. Therefore, the committee instructed the Air Force Secretary to conduct a study examining the ability of the service's air and ground test and evaluation infrastructure to support near- and far-term hypersonics development activities, and to incorporate the findings into the master plan.

Unfortunately this looks quite like a similar exercise under Ron Sega, can we say NAI? Hopefully, something real will come of this, but I'm not extremely hopeful at this point, though time will tell.

Offline DSE

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 444
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #188 on: June 07, 2012, 01:48:32 pm »
Hypersonics ground test and evaluation capabilities and
workforce

Crucial to advancing the field of hypersonics that will support
the development of advanced weapons systems, is a robust ground
test and evaluation infrastructure that enables a broad range of research
and development capabilities. Whether for vehicle aerodynamics,
thermal design, or propulsion system development,
ground test facilities are crucial to not only reducing risk in development,
but for the research community to expand foundational
knowledge in this area of aeronautics, as well as to increase confidence
in computational design tools.
Much of the U.S. hypersonics test and evaluation infrastructure—
primarily shared between the Department of Defense (DOD)
and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
but also including some capabilities in other parts of the government
and the private sector—is dated; existing facilities have limits
in either test duration, or in accurately replicating the physics of
hypersonic flows, or in the size of the models that can be tested.
Furthermore, the development of hypersonic air vehicles—including
gliders or those with air breathing propulsion—has experienced
periods of increasing and decreasing demand in the past few decades.
This situation has led to a large degree of uncertainty in the
demand for hypersonic test and evaluation facilities and hence they

have been a target for cost savings in the current fiscal environment.
However, the DOD’s new defense strategic guidance emphasizes
the importance of projecting power despite anti-access/area denial
challenges. In addition to rebalancing focus towards the Asia-Pacific
region, the guidance states that the U.S. military ‘‘will invest
as required to ensure its ability to operate effectively in anti-access
and area denial (A2/AD) environments.’’
The committee notes that the wide expanses of distances in the
Asia-Pacific region, the growing A2/AD threat which requires greater
stand-off distances, and the increasing need in modern warfare
for fast response times for time-critical targeting all point to the
need for the Department to invest in high-speed weapon and platform
technologies, including hypersonics.
The committee notes that the state of the Nation’s hypersonics
ground test and evaluation facilities and workforce have not received
adequate attention over the years facing both threats of
divesture as well as gradual decay, and is concerned that the broad
developmental hypersonics community needs renewed attention.
Hence, the committee directs the Secretary of the Air Force to
conduct a study on the ability of the Air Force air and ground test
and evaluation infrastructure facilities, including wind tunnels and
air test ranges, as well as associated instrumentation, to support
defense hypersonic test and evaluation activities for the near and
far term. The study should consider the needs of research and technology
development as well as potential future DOD weapons programs.
The Secretary shall incorporate the results of the study into
a master plan for requirements and proposed investments to meet
the DOD needs through 2025. The Secretary of the Air Force shall
consult with the secretaries of the other military departments, the
Directors of the appropriate defense agencies, the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Research and Engineering (who oversees the
Joint Technology Office on Hypersonics), and the Director of the
Test Resource Management Center to assess the requirements
needed to support hypersonic research, development, test, and evaluation
throughout the DOD and to include all DOD requirements
in the master plan. In addition, the Secretary shall consult with
NASA and leverage current studies under the National Partnership
for Aeronautical Testing.
The study shall contain the following:
(a) Document the current condition and adequacy of the Air
Force test and evaluation infrastructure required to support
hypersonic research and development within DOD;
(b) Identify test and evaluation infrastructure that could be
used to support DOD hypersonic research and development
outside the Department of the Air Force and assess means to
ensure the availability of such capabilities to the DOD now and
in the future; and
(c) Include a time phased plan to acquire required hypersonic
research and development test and evaluation capabilities including
identification of the resources necessary to acquire any
needed capabilities that are currently not available.
The Secretary shall submit a report of the findings of this study
not later than 1 year after the enactment of this Act.

According to section 139d(a)(5)(D) of the Weapon System Acquisition
Reform Act (WSARA) of 2009 (Public Law 111–23), the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense (DASD) for Developmental Test and
Evaluation (DT&E) shall provide advocacy, oversight, and guidance
to elements of the acquisition workforce responsible for developmental
test and evaluation. In addition, section 139d(b)(1)(A) of
WSARA mandates that the service acquisition executive of each
military department develops plans to ensure the military department
concerned has provided appropriate resources for developmental
test organizations with adequate numbers of trained personnel.
Hence, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Developmental
Test and Evaluation, dual-hatted as the Director of the Test
Resource Management Center, shall work with the Air Force acquisition
executive, as well as the Commanders of the Air Force Materiel
Command and the Air Force Research Laboratory, to ensure
that the following objectives are met:
(a) Develop and sustain the expertise of the hypersonics test
and evaluation workforce; and
(b) Develop the next generation of hypersonics T&E experts
via Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics efforts.
The DASD for DT&E, along with the two Air Force officials identified,
shall brief the congressional defense committees no later
than 180 days after the enactment of this Act on what specific
steps are being taken to meet these objectives.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #189 on: June 07, 2012, 05:00:52 pm »
As far as I can tell these two vehicles aren't remotely similar in capability.  Like saying, "these ATACMs are so effective, let's replace all our Trident missiles with them."   Gotta love politicians.  Has anybody even considered how the ARMY is suppose to use this thing?  I doubt it.


Not really an Army program. The A in AHW is Advanced not Army.

And while it may not have the exact same capabilities it also doesn't have some of the HTV-2's problems either.

"the Army’s Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW) "
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline dark sidius

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 364
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #190 on: June 08, 2012, 09:03:37 am »
This is very so long to see a prompt global strike weapon, we hear this concept since 2004 and there is now no weapon system available in 2012 when this weapon will be ready to work?

Offline DSE

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 444
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #191 on: June 08, 2012, 11:49:22 am »
"the Army’s Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW) "

Quote
The Army's Advanced Hypersonic Weapon Technology Demonstration is a cooperative
effort within the Department of Defense to develop a conventional Prompt Global Strike
capability.

"This was a total team effort with Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, N.M.; the
U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center,
Huntsville, and under the direction and funding of the Office of the Secretary of Defense's
Prompt Global Strike," Formica said.

The AHW program is managed and executed by the SMDC program office in Huntsville.
The booster system and glide vehicle were developed by Sandia National Laboratories
and the thermal protection system by the AMRDEC.

The data collected will be used by DOD to model and develop future hypersonic boost-glide
capabilities for Conventional Prompt Global Strike.

So yeah I guess I'm pushing semantics, but in my view this really isn't an "Army" program per se, it's an OSD program.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2012, 11:52:48 am by DSE »

Offline DSE

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 444
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #192 on: July 12, 2012, 10:21:35 am »
CRS Report on Long Range Ballistic Strike | U.S. Naval Institute:

http://www.usni.org/fr/news-analysis/documents/crs-report-long-range-ballistic-strike

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1169
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #193 on: July 12, 2012, 11:23:02 am »
Thank you DSE for posting the report.
even more thankfully the report appears to posit that the risks in ballistic solutions can not all be managed..therefore hopefully all involved will see and seek only non-ballistic solutions. ..and this w/o even mentioning ballistic solutions will continue to become easier to intercept over time anyway as opposed to non-ballistic.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #194 on: July 12, 2012, 02:16:39 pm »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #196 on: July 21, 2012, 08:47:48 pm »
  Navy Conducting Wind Tunnel Tests Of Reentry Shapes As Part Of Sub-Launched Strike Study      
Posted: Jul. 20, 2012    

As the Pentagon considers developing a submarine-launched conventional prompt global strike capability, the Navy is conducting wind tunnel testing on reentry body shapes and holding discussions to ensure the Virginia-class payload module doesn't preclude related future capabilities, a senior service official said today.  Speaking in Washington at an Air Force Association event, the Navy's Strategic Systems Program office Director Rear Adm. Terry Benedict said his office is serving as a technical consultant for the Navy's submarines program executive office in the Virginia-class payload module work.  "The discussions that we are in with [Rear Adm. David Johnson] in PEO submarines, as they look at the architecture for that module, is as technical consultants to ensure that they don't preclude any future capability if leadership were to desire to do so," he said during the event. "We are not in a design phase today with Adm. Johnson designing a CPGS fire control subsystem for that module."


In a short interview following the event, Benedict said his office is also supporting the Defense Department's efforts to look into a submarine-launched capability by "looking at technology applicable to both the Navy, the Army and the Air Force." This technology consists of wind tunnel testing on specific reentry body shapes, he said.  The Pentagon's fiscal year 2013 defense budget plan calls for the design of a new submarine-launched conventional prompt strike option as part of its effort to increase or protect investments "in capabilities that preserve the U.S. military's ability to project power in contested areas and strike quickly from over the horizon," according to a DOD white paper released in January.  According to a Congressional Research Service report released this month on CPGS, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta provided a briefing that linked this sub-launched effort with "a program to provide the Virginia-class attack submarines with the capability to carry more conventional cruise missiles."  The July 6 report also notes that the Pentagon has not yet decided whether it will deploy a prompt global strike system on land or at sea. DOD "has left open the option of deploying the systems at sea, so that as it develops both the booster and the hypersonic glider technologies, it can pursue technologies that will reduce the cost and risk of the program even if they come with a reduced range," the report states.


Benedict threw his support behind a sub-launched capability for the conventional prompt global strike program, which aims to strike worldwide targets in under an hour without using nuclear weapons. "I continue to believe that the submarine does offer a strong capability potential in conventional prompt global strike," he said.  Lawmakers have been opposed to efforts to modify the conventional Trident missile to be a sea-based option, citing concerns that other countries could confuse the system for a nuclear weapon. The Pentagon is working on this ambiguity concern, Benedict said, noting there are still individuals requesting additional data to assuage these worries.  "If we were asked to go forward with concepts, we would ensure that whatever we came up with and proposed would be significantly different from a Trident signature," he said in the interview, echoing prior comments by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey.  During the event, Benedict also talked about how his office is aggressively pursuing collaboration efforts with the Air Force and implementing resource and component commonality where appropriate. Last week, Benedict's technical director met with his Air Force counterpart to discuss what a collaborative structure between the Navy and Air Force would look like. "This structure will provide a single framework for our efforts to ensure we share the same language, maximize limited resources and break down any unintended barriers that may be caused by unique service cultures and structures," he said.


Benedict said this effort comes with a number of benefits, and noted that one day it could potentially lead to a joint strategic ballistic missile program. But he noted there are also risks.  If the Pentagon were to have a common guidance system, a common motor or common missile that had a problem, it could create systems engineering issues that could affect the entire U.S. strategic nuclear deterrence effort, according to Benedict. In comparison, system failure today would only affect a sub-population of ICBMs or SLBMs.


The Navy and the Air Force are working to "break down the service organizational boundaries or hurdles that sometimes exist so that we can have the true worthwhile discussions technically before we were to offer up any programmatic options," he said. "And I think we're making great progress along those lines." -- Jordana Mishory
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #197 on: August 01, 2012, 07:22:09 pm »
 U.S. Senate Panel Curbs Navy Effort to Add Missiles to Attack Submarines   

Aug. 1, 2012 By Elaine M. Grossman Global Security Newswire 

 WASHINGTON -- A key U.S. Senate panel on Tuesday announced that it would seek to restrict a Navy program to build new missile launch tubes into its Virginia-class attack submarines (see GSN, March 16).  The Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee said its version of a fiscal 2013 funding bill had moved to "limit" the Obama administration’s ability to start a new Virginia Payload Module developmental effort “until requirements and cost estimates are validated.” The lawmakers did not elaborate.  The subcommittee-approved $604.5 billion markup text has not yet been released but could be publicly available by Thursday, when the full Appropriations Committee is slated to consider the legislation.  A Navy flag officer last year asserted that the effort to expand weapons capacity in as many as 20 new attack submarines would be “cost-effective,” offering fresh arrows in the sea-based quiver at a fraction of the price of other shipbuilding alternatives. The price tag for building the modules -- not counting the missiles and warheads to load in them -- could top $10 billion.  The Virginia Payload Module would add “about 20 percent to the cost of each ship,” Rear Adm. Michael Connor said in an article about future Navy procurement for undersea combat. Each Virginia-class submarine currently costs roughly $2.6 billion, suggesting the new weapon capacity could boost the unit price to slightly more than $3.1 billion, again excluding the cost of missiles and their warheads.  Defense Secretary Leon Panetta in January revealed that the Navy next year would begin developing the idea of building into the fast-attack submersibles a capacity to launch conventionally armed prompt-strike missiles (see GSN, Jan. 27). At the time, Global Security Newswire was the first to report detailed technology options the Navy was weighing for the mission.


 The Defense Department sought to spend $100 million on the Virginia Payload Module in the new fiscal year, which begins on Oct. 1. Navy budget documents also indicate that the development project would cost nearly $800 million between 2013 and 2017, though no official cost estimate to complete the program was listed.  “It is a good judgment call on the part of the appropriators to examine the program further,” said Hans Kristensen, who directs the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists.


For its part, the House on July 19 passed a 2013 defense appropriations bill that fully funded a line item for Virginia-class design activities that includes the payload module project, plus added $15 million above the administration request.  Pentagon leaders for several years have said they seek a non-nuclear capability to hit short-notice targets anywhere around the world, such as terrorist leaders or enemy missiles being prepared for launch. Today, only U.S. nuclear-armed ballistic missiles are available for such quick-attack missions worldwide.  The Pentagon has invested in a number of sea- and ground-based technologies for conventional prompt global strike, including a Navy Conventional Trident Modification and an Air Force Conventional Strike Missile. They have encountered an array of political and technical challenges, though, and none today appears anywhere close to being deployed (see GSN, May 8).


 Enter the Virginia Payload Module. Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the Navy’s top officer, in March described the effort as modifying the design of attack submarines that come off the production lines in coming years.  An initial step for “Block 3” versions of the Virginia-class “SSN” boats involves adding two new missile-launch tubes per vessel, each of which can accommodate six Tomahawk conventional cruise missiles. These two large tubes on the submarine’s bow replace 12 narrow vertical launch Tomahawk tubes on earlier versions of the boat.  Greenert, the chief of naval operations, said these new launch tubes would have an 87-inch diameter. Navy and industry officials say that is big enough to consider substituting one to three new-design, medium-range ballistic missiles for prompt global strike in each tube, instead of loading Tomahawks.  Once the Virginia Payload Module is developed and ready -- the Navy is aiming for the early 2020s -- four of the launch systems could be installed in the attack submarine’s aft section, behind the mast, naval and industry officials have said. These even larger launch tubes reportedly could allow for an additional Tomahawk -- seven per tube -- or perhaps a larger ballistic missile.  Connor last summer described the Virginia Payload Module as necessitating a potentially costly step: Cutting the current submarine design in half and adding a brand new midsection, a concept some have termed a “stretch” version of the submarine.  “Stretching 20 of the Virginia-class SSNs already in the Navy shipbuilding plan to support the addition of four large vertical-payload tubes will provide the force with near-equivalent undersea payload volume currently provided by our four dual-crewed SSGNs,” said Connor, referring in a June 2011 U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings article to four previously nuclear-capable Ohio-class submarines that have been converted for conventional Tomahawk and special operations.


 At the time, Connor directed the Navy’s Submarine Warfare Division. The two-star flag officer currently serves as assistant deputy chief of naval operations for warfare systems.  “Because these tubes would be added aft of the sail near the longitudinal center of the ship, they would be accessible to operators reaching through manway hatches similar to SSBN tubes today),” Connor wrote, noting the launcher set-up for nuclear-capable Trident D-5 missiles in Ohio-class submarines. “This would be an important advantage over the large-diameter bow tubes in Virginia Block 3, which are not accessible.”  The Pentagon’s lead contractor for the Virginia-class submarines, General Dynamics Electric Boat, last year said it was responsible for proposing the idea of the new payload compartment.


 Stretching the submarine to accommodate the new launchers would add the equivalent size of an NBA basketball court to the vessel’s 377-foot length.  The Virginia Payload Module “comprises four additional large-diameter payload tubes in a module inserted amidships in Virginia-class submarines, extending the hull by 94 feet and increasing the fixed-strike capacity by more than 230 percent per ship,” General Dynamics stated in a promotional piece posted online.  The additional launch capacity translates to giving military commanders more weapon options for striking geographically dispersed targets, according to the contractor.  Rear Adm. Terry Benedict, who oversees nuclear-armed and non-nuclear strike submarines as director of Navy Strategic Systems Programs, said recently that the Virginia Payload Module could allow his branch to replace the conventional capacity of today’s four Ohio-class SSGN submarines when they retire, without having to buy brand new SSGNs.  Whether the module-equipped Virginia-class boats would also carry a missile designed for conventional prompt global strike has not yet been decided, he told a Capitol Hill breakfast audience on July 20.


 “The requirement today, as it stands, is a replacement for the SSGN Tomahawk-shooters,” Benedict said. As Navy officials study what the new Virginia-class vessels should be capable of doing, Benedict said he hopes “to ensure that they don’t preclude any future capability, if leadership were to desire [it].”  Adopting the Virginia-class design modification could help the Navy address an anticipated deficit in available sea-based weapons in the years to come, Connor said.  “If all 20 of the Virginia SSNs starting with Block 5 (beginning construction in 2019) were stretched to include this [launch system], the gap in undersea strike volume would be reduced by more than three-quarters,” he wrote.  “Adding a payload module is a significant investment,” he said, without divulging a specific program cost estimate. “However, it is possible to stretch 10 Virginia SSNs for the cost of a single new Ohio-like SSGN.”  Kristensen was skeptical, though, that changing the design of new-production attack submarines was the most sensible way to replace the four aging SSGN conventionally armed vessels.  “Changing the Virginia launch tubes appears to be intended to create mini-SSGNs with dozens of conventional land-attack cruise missiles and, potentially in the future, provide a capability to launch conventional ballistic missiles from SSNs,” Kristensen said. “Whether a future naval conventional global strike missile would be important enough to justify the considerable costs of such a program is another matter.”  The Block 3 and Block 5 modifications to the Virginia-class design would offer capacity for just 40 Tomahawks per submarine – or fewer cruise missiles if the loading is mixed with one or more new medium-range ballistic missiles. By contrast, today’s SSGNs each have the ability to launch 140 Tomahawks, Kristensen said.

 
“If the Navy wants some extra [Tomahawk cruise missile availability], instead of expensive SSN conversion, why not simply build two dozen containers with launch tubes that can be loaded onto cargo ships when needed to augment the large number of [cruise missiles] already deployed on ships and submarines?” he asked.  The Tomahawks could be “offloaded and returned to storage on land when not needed,” Kristensen said. 
====================================
I am so sick of this guy, Hans Kristensen, he is against everything. Sure he always sounds soooooo reasonable, we just need more testing, it should be further looked at but he has been against every major weapon system from MX, B2, Pershing to Trident (nuclear and conventional) to this. I just wish he would be honest and say I don't want to build anything and the US should unilaterally disarm.  The final bolded paragraph he knows that would never be an option, arming a cargo ship, so he proposes things like that to, again, sound reasonable.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2012, 07:54:07 pm by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8065
  • The path not taken.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #198 on: August 02, 2012, 04:16:08 am »
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember Kristensen being one of the Arsenal Ship program's supporters, yet now he wants one by the back door? And using an inferior version of the concept from the sounds of it.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #199 on: August 02, 2012, 04:17:00 pm »
edit......
« Last Edit: August 02, 2012, 04:18:46 pm by seruriermarshal »

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 861
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #200 on: August 02, 2012, 04:18:09 pm »
edit......

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #202 on: November 05, 2012, 10:56:37 pm »
See bolded item. Am I reading too much into this when it says that they 'fly on the following platforms' and every other system is in operation?

ATK motor cases and vehicle structures fly on the following platforms:
 
  • The Ground-based Midcourse Defense missile-defense interceptor, the centerpiece of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency’s layered ballistic missile defense architecture.
  • The Israeli Arrow II and Stunner interceptor missiles, both joint programs between the U.S. Missile Defense Agency and the Israeli Ministry of Defense.
  • The Submarine-launched Intermediate-range Ballistic Missile, which will travel at supersonic speed to reach targets within 15 minutes, providing the U.S. Navy with prompt global strike capability.
  • The U.S. Air Force’s Minuteman III, a silo-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missile that serves as America’s prime nuclear deterrent.
  • The submarine-launched Trident II (D5) missile, the primary strategic weapon in the U.S. Navy’s Fleet Ballistic Missile system.
  • And the Lockheed Martin Atlas V family of launch vehicles, part of the U.S. Air Force’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #203 on: November 06, 2012, 05:04:26 am »
See bolded item. Am I reading too much into this when it says that they 'fly on the following platforms' and every other system is in operation?

ATK motor cases and vehicle structures fly on the following platforms:
 
  • The Ground-based Midcourse Defense missile-defense interceptor, the centerpiece of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency’s layered ballistic missile defense architecture.
  • The Israeli Arrow II and Stunner interceptor missiles, both joint programs between the U.S. Missile Defense Agency and the Israeli Ministry of Defense.
  • The Submarine-launched Intermediate-range Ballistic Missile, which will travel at supersonic speed to reach targets within 15 minutes, providing the U.S. Navy with prompt global strike capability.
  • The U.S. Air Force’s Minuteman III, a silo-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missile that serves as America’s prime nuclear deterrent.
  • The submarine-launched Trident II (D5) missile, the primary strategic weapon in the U.S. Navy’s Fleet Ballistic Missile system.
  • And the Lockheed Martin Atlas V family of launch vehicles, part of the U.S. Air Force’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program.

How does an intermediate-range "supersonic" missile reach anywhere on the planet in 15 minutes?  BTW it sounds like the India Shaurya missile.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3103
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #204 on: November 06, 2012, 05:19:17 am »
   
  • The Submarine-launched Intermediate-range Ballistic Missile, which will travel at supersonic speed to reach targets within 15 minutes, providing the U.S. Navy with prompt global strike capability.

Probably a legacy reference to this: http://www.lockheedmartin.co.uk/us/news/press-releases/2006/july/LOCKHEEDMARTINATKTESTFIREFIRSTSTAGE.html

It has not been funded since 2007. DoD is currently looking at boost-glide solutions. The Army Advanced Hypersonic Weapon Technology Demonstration programme was providing info; I don't know what the FY13 outlook is though.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #205 on: November 06, 2012, 11:08:04 am »
 U.S. Brass Reviews Prompt Global Strike, Mulling Submarine-Fired Arms

Nov. 6, 2012 By Elaine M. Grossman Global Security Newswire

    WASHINGTON -- It may be Election Day across the United States but, at the Pentagon, some top military minds are focused elsewhere. The Defense Department’s highest-level review panel for warfighting concepts on Tuesday is slated to assess how to proceed on developing conventional weapons capable of attacking targets halfway around the world on short notice, Global Security Newswire has learned.  The Joint Requirements Oversight Council -- which is chaired by the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and includes the No. 2 officers from each of the four military services -- will meet to discuss the “way forward” for conventional prompt global strike, Joint Staff spokesman Lt. Col. Larry Porter confirmed. The high-level panel has the authority to approve or alter Pentagon plans for the types of combat and support capabilities needed in coming years. In this instance, the Defense Department is seeking a non-nuclear ability to hit with less than one hour’s notice far-flung, time-sensitive targets. Examples might include a terrorist leader spotted at a temporary hide-out or a rogue adversary preparing to launch a ballistic missile. As the situation stands, if no U.S. ships, aircraft or drones are stationed nearby to hit an important short-notice threat, the only alternative might be using a long-range nuclear weapon, according to defense officials. So Pentagon leaders have taken interest in conventionally armed ballistic missiles or maneuverable boost-glide delivery systems that could attack targets worldwide at hypersonic speeds, seeing these as less devastating -- and thus more usable -- alternatives to nuclear arms against selected targets.   Porter said he could not offer additional details about the agenda for the military deputies’ Tuesday meeting.


 However, defense sources anticipated that the vice chiefs would discuss whether the Navy could develop a new type of prompt-strike weapon for deployment aboard submarines. Some sources contributed to this article on condition of not being named because they lacked permission to publicly address the sensitive topic. Among the other prompt-strike weapons under development for achieving non-nuclear strategic effects are an Air Force Conventional Strike Missile with a Hypersonic Technology Vehicle-2 front end that has encountered some setbacks in testing; and an Army Advanced Hypersonic Weapon that military leaders describe as a useful test bed for ground- or sea-launched systems. Any decisions emerging from the Joint Requirements Oversight Council meeting could significantly affect which technologies move ahead, and it appears to be a good bet that the new missile for Virginia-class vessels will carry the day. Under the emerging naval concept, revealed by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta early this year, the Navy would begin developing a capacity for the fast-attack submersibles to launch conventionally armed missiles. Insiders have described the delivery concept as an intermediate-range ballistic missile, possibly featuring a front end that could maneuver into its target in the final stages of flight. As few as two, or as many as 12, such missiles might be carried on the attack submarines, according to sources. The new idea might yet prove politically controversial amid a congressional ban on building conventional versions of nuclear-armed Trident D-5 ballistic missiles. Lawmakers have voiced concerns that firing a fast-flying missile from a stealthy submarine could spark dangerous international “ambiguity” in a crisis -- if Russia or China, for instance, misinterpreted the launch as a first salvo of a nuclear war.


 Navy budget plans indicate that the effort to develop the so-called Virginia Payload Module would cost nearly $800 million between 2013 and 2017, but no official price tag to complete the program has been released. The Senate Appropriations Committee in August cut all but $10 million from a $100 million line item for the Navy project in its mark-up of the fiscal 2013 defense appropriations bill. The panel called the module effort “early to need,” suggesting it was not yet necessary for military missions. The Senate committee also questioned whether an estimated expansion of the attack submarine’s size by one-third to install a nearly 94-foot center section to hold missiles might “result in instability to proven submarine design, disruption to a stable production line and add significant cost risk.” The Senate’s defense appropriations report directed the Pentagon to use the remaining $10 million “to validate the [Virginia Payload Module] requirement and cost estimate with the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, to ensure the VPM program is subject” to the “rigor” typical of a major defense procurement effort. At the same time, the Senate panel 's bill added $90 million to the defense-wide account for Conventional Prompt Global Strike, directing that the funds be used for continuing development of the Army’s Advanced Hypersonic Weapon. Given that a version of the Army weapon might someday be used as a front end for a future submarine-based prompt global strike missile, the net effect of the Senate actions might prove to be less of a reduction than a rebalancing of priorities, according to some defense sources. The House fully funded Navy appropriations to develop conventional strike from attack submarines, boosting by $15 million a $165.2 million line item for an array of new design features -- some unrelated to the payload module -- on the Virginia-class boats.


 The full Senate has yet to vote on its version of the legislation and the two chambers to date have not resolved differences between their spending bills. Several federal agencies including the Defense Department have been operating since Oct. 1 on monies provided by a fiscal 2013 continuing resolution. Lawmakers have urged the Pentagon to study whether there might be ways to mitigate the types of crisis-stability concerns raised by equipping ballistic-missile submarines with conventionally armed look-alikes of nuclear-tipped Trident D-5s. They have also encouraged consideration of using ground-based systems instead. Yet, some nuclear-weapon experts are uncertain whether the proposed new attack capability on Virginia-class submarines might raise similar ambiguity concerns. In fact, a number of observers have begun raising the possibility that virtually any U.S. conventional prompt global strike system could hasten the pre-emptive launch of an adversary nuclear weapon, based on a use-it-or-lose-it logic. Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists said early this year that even “a conventional intermediate-range ballistic missile launched from a converted Virginia-class attack submarine could be misinterpreted because its compressed trajectory would look much like a nuclear D-5 launched in a compressed trajectory as part of a first strike.” Rather than strengthen deterrence, prompt-strike conventional weapons of any kind could push U.S. adversaries “even further toward more prompt-launch capabilities” of their own, he said later at an August symposium. “More trigger-happy postures, if you will, that could in fact weaken deterrence and increase the risk of mistaken, inadvertent or even deliberate escalation.” The Pentagon “has no plans to adapt a nuclear missile to carry a conventional payload or to use ballistic-missile submarines as delivery systems,” Madelyn Creedon, assistant Defense secretary for global strategic affairs, said at the same panel discussion. “Those systems raise ambiguity that was deemed unacceptable. … The risk of miscalculation resulting from the ballistic trajectory or [a weapon] that is launched from a ballistic-missile submarine -- it’s real.” Like other Defense officials, though, Creedon appeared increasingly comfortable with a submarine-based solution for prompt global strike, as long as certain precautions are taken. The Pentagon is mulling two “ways to manage this risk”: One is “to change the trajectory” of a weapon so that it is no longer akin to nuclear-armed ballistic missile flight, and the other is to “change the platform,” Creedon said.


 She and Kristensen spoke at a symposium in Omaha, Neb., sponsored by U.S. Strategic Command, which is responsible for any long-range conventional or nuclear combat operations. “The technical solutions we seek include boost-glide vehicles, which … have a distinctively nonballistic trajectory for more than 50 percent” of their flight path, Creedon said. “This will significantly reduce the risks that a state -- which would have to possess the capability to detect and characterize that attacking missile -- would misperceive the attack as a nuclear one, [rather than] conventional.” She also described what she called “cross-maneuverability,” a capacity for a weapon to change direction repeatedly while in flight. In contrast to a ballistic path to target, which is locked into an inverted-U shaped trajectory, “we may be able to reduce or eliminate overflight concerns” in which Russia or others might worry they are under attack and could launch their own nuclear weapons precipitously. Technology alternatives to developing conventionally armed ballistic missiles also “can be augmented by policy solutions that incorporate confidence-building [weapon] basing strategies and transparency measures into any deployment of such a system,” Creedon said.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #207 on: December 19, 2012, 08:04:35 pm »
DOD Cancels Acquisition Decision For Conventional Prompt Global Strike 

The Pentagon has decided the Conventional Prompt Global Strike program, which aims to develop the capability to strike targets worldwide within an hour, is not ready to formally enter the acquisition process.
--------------------------------------
Anyone with DOD background what does this mean it terms of where in the development cycle this weapon system is? Is the technology mature enough that is could be produced in the near term but is not quite ready or is this worse news than I am interpreting it to be?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline jjnodice

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 97
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #208 on: December 20, 2012, 07:35:02 am »
I couldn't find the full article.  Was this a USAF or a USN decision?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #209 on: December 20, 2012, 08:12:14 am »
DOD Cancels Acquisition Decision For Conventional Prompt Global Strike 

The Pentagon has decided the Conventional Prompt Global Strike program, which aims to develop the capability to strike targets worldwide within an hour, is not ready to formally enter the acquisition process.
--------------------------------------
Anyone with DOD background what does this mean it terms of where in the development cycle this weapon system is? Is the technology mature enough that is could be produced in the near term but is not quite ready or is this worse news than I am interpreting it to be?

I'd be astonished if they even got to hardware.  If I were betting I'd guess it wasn't much more than a series of Powerpoints saying "we could use an already existing missile with a different warhead". 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #210 on: December 20, 2012, 08:26:47 am »
I couldn't find the full article.  Was this a USAF or a USN decision?

Full article behind a pay wall. But I think all programs are run out of the OSD (Office of the Sec Defense)  but I could be wrong
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline 2IDSGT

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 371
  • Ah tale yew wut!
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #211 on: December 20, 2012, 08:46:09 am »
In any case, it was probably canceled because there is no fool-proof way make sure the system won't be confused with a nuclear strike (as in large IR plumes headed toward the Eurasian landmass). 

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2895
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #212 on: December 20, 2012, 11:01:35 am »
Anyone with DOD background what does this mean it terms of where in the development cycle this weapon system is? Is the technology mature enough that is could be produced in the near term but is not quite ready or is this worse news than I am interpreting it to be?

There are any number of reasons a program could be deemed not ready to enter acquisition, from lack of technical maturity to absence of a clearly defined requirement.  IMO, perceived lack of Congressional support is as likely as anything in this case.  DoD isn't going to commit to the effort of establishing a full program office if they believe the program is going to get killed in the first budget cycle.


Offline jjnodice

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 97
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #213 on: December 20, 2012, 11:43:47 am »
The real key is that the testing programs continue -- and work -- otherwise no one is going to stand up and ask to fund an acquisitions program. 

It is good news that DARPA is going to have a 3rd HTV-2 flight.  It has to succeed.  Orbital can't splash the vehicle or fail to shroud separate and LM has to get the thing to fly all they way to impact...

Any news on more Army AHW tests?  They had a success.  When is the next one?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #214 on: December 20, 2012, 11:47:58 am »
In any case, it was probably canceled because there is no fool-proof way make sure the system won't be confused with a nuclear strike (as in large IR plumes headed toward the Eurasian landmass).

That doesn't seem to concern Russia anymore.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline 2IDSGT

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 371
  • Ah tale yew wut!
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #215 on: December 20, 2012, 12:03:58 pm »
In any case, it was probably canceled because there is no fool-proof way make sure the system won't be confused with a nuclear strike (as in large IR plumes headed toward the Eurasian landmass).
That doesn't seem to concern Russia anymore.
See "Black Brant scare."  Even in the chummy days of Yeltsin, the risks of misinterpretation were present. (although it was a radar warning in this case).   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/coldwar/shatter031598a.htm

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #216 on: December 20, 2012, 02:37:10 pm »
In any case, it was probably canceled because there is no fool-proof way make sure the system won't be confused with a nuclear strike (as in large IR plumes headed toward the Eurasian landmass).
That doesn't seem to concern Russia anymore.
See "Black Brant scare."  Even in the chummy days of Yeltsin, the risks of misinterpretation were present. (although it was a radar warning in this case).   http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/coldwar/shatter031598a.htm

The Russians justify the large payload capacity of their new ICBM partly on the need for the ICBM to support a large conventional warhead.  This suggest the Russians also intend to field an equivalent to prompt global strike.
 
If the Chinese have indeed fielded a maneuverable conventional anti-carrier warhead on top of an IRBM booster as the USN have claimed, then they are just a booster switch away from fielding an equivalent of prompt global strike.
 
Within the next decade, the capacity to launch pinpoint strike anywhere in the world on short notice might be common and no longer in itself an American advantage.   The remaining American advantage might be better intelligence provided by a better surveillance assets.   
« Last Edit: December 20, 2012, 02:45:46 pm by chuck4 »

Offline 2IDSGT

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 371
  • Ah tale yew wut!
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #217 on: December 27, 2012, 09:45:52 pm »
The Russians justify the large payload capacity of their new ICBM partly on the need for the ICBM to support a large conventional warhead.  This suggest the Russians also intend to field an equivalent to prompt global strike.
 
If the Chinese have indeed fielded a maneuverable conventional anti-carrier warhead on top of an IRBM booster as the USN have claimed, then they are just a booster switch away from fielding an equivalent of prompt global strike.
 
Within the next decade, the capacity to launch pinpoint strike anywhere in the world on short notice might be common and no longer in itself an American advantage.   The remaining American advantage might be better intelligence provided by a better surveillance assets.   
The Russians are continuing their tradition of large, land-based ICBMs because that is the cheapest way to fill their New-START quota.  The capability for conventional, precision warheads is there, but I don't really see that as an advantage for anyone because I can scarcely think of a more expensive/risky way to deliver a non-nuclear payload. 

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the Russians or Chinese waste money on such a system.  Who would they use the things against?  The US?  I can hear the hotline conversation now: "Don't worry Mr. President.  The 50 ICBMs we just launched against you are totally conventional.  We pinky-swear!"

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #218 on: December 28, 2012, 01:01:02 pm »
The Russians justify the large payload capacity of their new ICBM partly on the need for the ICBM to support a large conventional warhead.  This suggest the Russians also intend to field an equivalent to prompt global strike.
 
If the Chinese have indeed fielded a maneuverable conventional anti-carrier warhead on top of an IRBM booster as the USN have claimed, then they are just a booster switch away from fielding an equivalent of prompt global strike.
 
Within the next decade, the capacity to launch pinpoint strike anywhere in the world on short notice might be common and no longer in itself an American advantage.   The remaining American advantage might be better intelligence provided by a better surveillance assets.   
The Russians are continuing their tradition of large, land-based ICBMs because that is the cheapest way to fill their New-START quota.  The capability for conventional, precision warheads is there, but I don't really see that as an advantage for anyone because I can scarcely think of a more expensive/risky way to deliver a non-nuclear payload. 

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the Russians or Chinese waste money on such a system.  Who would they use the things against?  The US?  I can hear the hotline conversation now: "Don't worry Mr. President.  The 50 ICBMs we just launched against you are totally conventional.  We pinky-swear!"

China has a 'prompt' although not global conventional capability in its hundreds of MRBM's some said to be accurate enough to hit a carrier at sea. there would be no reason for a nuclear power to launch 50 conventional missiles at CONUS so the premise is faulty.

I envision a conventional missile on a SSGN or an ICBM range weapon based on the east and west coast for situations like a NORK mssile being loaded with a nuke and having only an hour to take it out. Right now this prompt mission would entail a nuclear armed missile, I think having a conventional capability would just be another tool in the tool box.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #219 on: December 28, 2012, 01:21:27 pm »
China has a 'prompt' although not global conventional capability in its hundreds of MRBM's some said to be accurate enough to hit a carrier at sea. there would be no reason for a nuclear power to launch 50 conventional missiles at CONUS so the premise is faulty.

I envision a conventional missile on a SSGN or an ICBM range weapon based on the east and west coast for situations like a NORK mssile being loaded with a nuke and having only an hour to take it out. Right now this prompt mission would entail a nuclear armed missile, I think having a conventional capability would just be another tool in the tool box.

If the US does it (or even talks about it) it's the end of the world and, "ZOMG!!11 Nucular wARE!!!"  If China or Russia does though, nothing but crickets.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline dark sidius

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 364
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #220 on: December 28, 2012, 02:03:32 pm »
And what about the other projects like hypersonic glider or Darpa integrated hypersonic? The conventional icbm is a mistake but there is another concept who can work.

Offline 2IDSGT

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 371
  • Ah tale yew wut!
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #221 on: December 28, 2012, 02:10:10 pm »
China has a 'prompt' although not global conventional capability in its hundreds of MRBM's some said to be accurate enough to hit a carrier at sea. there would be no reason for a nuclear power to launch 50 conventional missiles at CONUS so the premise is faulty.
DING, DING: you win the prize!  Of course the premise if faulty.  Point being, conventional ICBMs would be useless for China/Russia because the only ICBM-ranged targets they have are in the continental US (unless Putin wants to blow up some dissidents hiding in Uruguay, or someplace comparably distant).  Of course, it's their money to waste.

I get the rationale behind global strike for the US.  It would be pretty neat if we could just push a button and make anyone on the planet dead within 30 minutes, but I'd just as soon not spend the money on something of such limited utility that looks just like a nuclear weapon to anyone's early-warning system.  As for your NORK scenario, why would we need to use Minuteman IIIs out of Vandenberg when we already have assets much closer that could do the job in the same amount of time or less, at a fraction of the cost?

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #222 on: December 28, 2012, 02:38:27 pm »
China has a 'prompt' although not global conventional capability in its hundreds of MRBM's some said to be accurate enough to hit a carrier at sea. there would be no reason for a nuclear power to launch 50 conventional missiles at CONUS so the premise is faulty.
DING, DING: you win the prize!  Of course the premise if faulty.  Point being, conventional ICBMs would be useless for China/Russia because the only ICBM-ranged targets they have are in the continental US (unless Putin wants to blow up some dissidents hiding in Uruguay, or someplace comparably distant).  Of course, it's their money to waste.

I get the rationale behind global strike for the US.  It would be pretty neat if we could just push a button and make anyone on the planet dead within 30 minutes, but I'd just as soon not spend the money on something of such limited utility that looks just like a nuclear weapon to anyone's early-warning system.  As for your NORK scenario, why would we need to use Minuteman IIIs out of Vandenberg when we already have assets much closer that could do the job in the same amount of time or less, at a fraction of the cost?

I don't know what other assets would be 30 minutes from a NORK base especialy in the north of the country. Plus a HTV-2 type vehicle on a Minotaur type launcher would definitely get throught to the target but F-15E's in South Korea may not (B-2's in Guam way to far away).
 
The National Acedemy of Science did a great study (available free online at their website) that said coastal launch with inspections would placate any Russian concern of the payload.
 
And just like you mentioned that Russia and China have no or limited global range targets (non-nulcear that is), the US would not be initiating a nuclear war with one missile launched from California or Florida. 
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #223 on: December 28, 2012, 02:47:22 pm »
China has a 'prompt' although not global conventional capability in its hundreds of MRBM's some said to be accurate enough to hit a carrier at sea. there would be no reason for a nuclear power to launch 50 conventional missiles at CONUS so the premise is faulty.
DING, DING: you win the prize!  Of course the premise if faulty.  Point being, conventional ICBMs would be useless for China/Russia because the only ICBM-ranged targets they have are in the continental US (unless Putin wants to blow up some dissidents hiding in Uruguay, or someplace comparably distant).  Of course, it's their money to waste.

I get the rationale behind global strike for the US.  It would be pretty neat if we could just push a button and make anyone on the planet dead within 30 minutes, but I'd just as soon not spend the money on something of such limited utility that looks just like a nuclear weapon to anyone's early-warning system.  As for your NORK scenario, why would we need to use Minuteman IIIs out of Vandenberg when we already have assets much closer that could do the job in the same amount of time or less, at a fraction of the cost?

Yep.  And we thought Bubba was stupid for using Tomahawks on tents.  Imagine the cost of using MMIIIs on tents.  :o
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #224 on: December 28, 2012, 03:00:33 pm »
China has a 'prompt' although not global conventional capability in its hundreds of MRBM's some said to be accurate enough to hit a carrier at sea. there would be no reason for a nuclear power to launch 50 conventional missiles at CONUS so the premise is faulty.
DING, DING: you win the prize!  Of course the premise if faulty.  Point being, conventional ICBMs would be useless for China/Russia because the only ICBM-ranged targets they have are in the continental US (unless Putin wants to blow up some dissidents hiding in Uruguay, or someplace comparably distant).  Of course, it's their money to waste.

I get the rationale behind global strike for the US.  It would be pretty neat if we could just push a button and make anyone on the planet dead within 30 minutes, but I'd just as soon not spend the money on something of such limited utility that looks just like a nuclear weapon to anyone's early-warning system.  As for your NORK scenario, why would we need to use Minuteman IIIs out of Vandenberg when we already have assets much closer that could do the job in the same amount of time or less, at a fraction of the cost?

Yep.  And we thought Bubba was stupid for using Tomahawks on tents.  Imagine the cost of using MMIIIs on tents.  :o

Imagine if OBL is in the tent, talking on a satellite phone.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #225 on: December 28, 2012, 03:33:26 pm »
China has a 'prompt' although not global conventional capability in its hundreds of MRBM's some said to be accurate enough to hit a carrier at sea. there would be no reason for a nuclear power to launch 50 conventional missiles at CONUS so the premise is faulty.
DING, DING: you win the prize!  Of course the premise if faulty.  Point being, conventional ICBMs would be useless for China/Russia because the only ICBM-ranged targets they have are in the continental US (unless Putin wants to blow up some dissidents hiding in Uruguay, or someplace comparably distant).  Of course, it's their money to waste.

I get the rationale behind global strike for the US.  It would be pretty neat if we could just push a button and make anyone on the planet dead within 30 minutes, but I'd just as soon not spend the money on something of such limited utility that looks just like a nuclear weapon to anyone's early-warning system.  As for your NORK scenario, why would we need to use Minuteman IIIs out of Vandenberg when we already have assets much closer that could do the job in the same amount of time or less, at a fraction of the cost?

Yep.  And we thought Bubba was stupid for using Tomahawks on tents.  Imagine the cost of using MMIIIs on tents.  :o

Imagine if OBL is in the tent, talking on a satellite phone.
. . .and Pakistan gives him a ring and says, "bro, you better GTF outta Dodge, an ICBM is on it's way". 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #226 on: December 28, 2012, 03:39:51 pm »
. . .and Pakistan gives him a ring and says, "bro, you better GTF outta Dodge, an ICBM is on it's way".

This is why PGS won't work against countries with surveillance and early warning satellites, like Russia or China.   Pakistan, on the other hand, won't know what hit it, unless its friends in beijing are particularly concerned about the health of OBL.
 
PGS is a highly specialized solution to a very narrow range of problems.  It's more similar to the bouncing bomb designed specifically to take out dams in the Ruhr, and not at all like a generalized part of a country's strategic deterrence.    So it shouldn't be evaluated as such.
 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #227 on: December 28, 2012, 03:53:04 pm »
. . .and Pakistan gives him a ring and says, "bro, you better GTF outta Dodge, an ICBM is on it's way".

This is why PGS won't work against countries with surveillance and early warning satellites, like Russia or China.   Pakistan, on the other hand, won't know what hit it, unless its friends in beijing are particularly concerned about the health of OBL.
 
PGS is a highly specialized solution to a very narrow range of problems.  It's more similar to the bouncing bomb designed specifically to take out dams in the Ruhr, and not at all like a generalized part of a country's strategic deterrence.    So it shouldn't be evaluated as such.

Yep, and killing an individual isn't one of them.  Even in Iraq, where we had people on the ground with eyes on Saddam, we never succeeded in bombing him.  In once instance a B-1B obliterated a building not 12 minutes after Saddam was seen entering it.  Missed him.  He'd gone out the back. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline 2IDSGT

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 371
  • Ah tale yew wut!
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #228 on: December 28, 2012, 04:15:04 pm »
PGS is a highly specialized solution to a very narrow range of problems.  It's more similar to the bouncing bomb designed specifically to take out dams in the Ruhr, and not at all like a generalized part of a country's strategic deterrence.    So it shouldn't be evaluated as such.
Well, if it's as cheap for us today as the bouncing bomb was for the UK in WWII, then I say go for it.

Offline TaiidanTomcat

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 863
  • "A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #229 on: December 29, 2012, 04:35:34 pm »

Imagine if OBL is in the tent, talking on a satellite phone.

1. is it really him? (UAV? HUMINT? If we do have a UAV is it armed? yay! no need for prompt global strike)
2. Can we confirm its really him?
3. OK how long will he be there?
4. are there any civilians in the area, or in the house with him?
5. Can we confirm the kill?
6. What about the intel on site?
7. Seriously, is it really him?
8. "mr President we are like, 75 percent sure it is totally him"
9. "what about casualties/collateral damage"
10 "??"
11. "are we going to use UAVs? SEALs? Cruise missiles?"
12 "Oh no sir that would be crazy, we are going to shoot an ICBM at place in Pakistan"
13. "Oh when you put it like that... yeah do it. I authorize the launch"
14. What if he leaves?
15. What if we miss?

Didnt we shoot a whole bunch of missiles at Bin Laden over the years? In the end it was Spec Ops that got him.

We have "prompt global strike" already, it looks like an armed Predator UAV. We are prompt global striking as i type this in Pakistan, Yemen, etc.
All F-35 threads will be locked, and supporters publicly outed or banned.

Offline TaiidanTomcat

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 863
  • "A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #230 on: December 29, 2012, 04:43:15 pm »

PGS is a highly specialized solution to a very narrow range of problems.

I feel like its a solution looking for a problem. As you say any of the big boys will see it and won't like it coming at them, and any of the little boys won't know what hit em so you don't need an ICBM--You can do it with smaller already available and developed assets.

PGS is an orphan in my book.

Quote
This is why PGS won't work against countries with surveillance and early warning satellites, like Russia or China.   Pakistan, on the other hand, won't know what hit it, unless its friends in beijing are particularly concerned about the health of OBL.

So we have to tip them off that we are killing OBL? Are we informing Russia?  Or we just launch and hope they all understand? What if it is not OBL but  one of the other higher ups? does he rate a PGS ICBM strike? How many of these things can we launch and beg forgiveness/understanding? What if we know where all these guys are but they (surprise!) don't live in a nice secluded tent in the mountains but in developed neighborhoods? Can we confirm the kill? We thought we had killed OBL in a cave at one point. If we level a neighborhood to get this guy, a little proof that it was worth it would go a long way...

In the end you also need civilian leadership to have the guts to push the button. Its not like the US wasn't capable of killing Bin Laden until September 12, 2001. The capability was always there, but we lacked the will. Convincing the boss to launch a PGS after we throw billions developing it is the real trick.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2012, 04:57:02 pm by TaiidanTomcat »
All F-35 threads will be locked, and supporters publicly outed or banned.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #231 on: December 30, 2012, 02:53:30 pm »
The scenarios I envision are, as I stated, I NORK missile with a nuke and let's add an Iranian missile with a nuke. Both countries have bases longer than 30 minutes from any current US weapon. A Trident CTM near Diego Garcia or by Taiwan could also do the trick.
It is a very limited tool in the toolbax however, as recent reports have stated coastal launch with inspections with a global range weapon combined with trajectory shaping could be an effective tool. A single missile launch from California will NOT cause the Russians or Chinese to start WWIII.
 
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline 2IDSGT

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 371
  • Ah tale yew wut!
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #232 on: December 30, 2012, 04:28:00 pm »
The scenarios I envision are, as I stated, I NORK missile with a nuke and let's add an Iranian missile with a nuke.
Such a plausible scenario.  ::)  You are assuming a level of stupidity for our dastardly opponents that beggars belief.  Between our existing deterrent and missile defense, if someone wanted to nickle and dime us with nukes, they'd probably just use FedEx as their delivery system and deny responsibility.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #233 on: December 30, 2012, 06:14:01 pm »
The scenarios I envision are, as I stated, I NORK missile with a nuke and let's add an Iranian missile with a nuke.
Such a plausible scenario.  ::)  You are assuming a level of stupidity for our dastardly opponents that beggars belief.  Between our existing deterrent and missile defense, if someone wanted to nickle and dime us with nukes, they'd probably just use FedEx as their delivery system and deny responsibility.
Who is saying the attack can only be on us? You've heard of the concept of extended deterrence? I think Iran would and could launch a nuke at Israel or NORK missile on Tokyo or Seoul. What would be our response if we knew North Korea was targeting Tokyo? Or Iran Tel Aviv? That's what makes a conventional response more appropriate. 
Guess what the weapon may never be used and if this seems like a waste to you then you question the entire premise of strategic deterrent doctrine since the end of WWII. You would even be interested to hear the US believes the F-22 and 35 are 'deterrents'. Most of the weapons we build are to prevent war. One of the big strategic debates since the end of the Cold War is that our nukes are too big and therefore cannot be used to deter an Iran or a North Korea so are in fact no deterrent at all. RNEP was to be build for this purpose not to be used but to have rogue nations believe we would use them.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline TaiidanTomcat

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 863
  • "A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #234 on: December 30, 2012, 10:20:58 pm »
I might be for PGS if it saved us in other areas. But there is a reason we have hundreds of bases all over the world, alliances, and a massive navy. Its all with the purpose of being "forward deployed" anyway. Mix that in with the missile shields we have been developing... PGS is just one more expensive way to do the same things we already spent/spend a bunch of money on already.

 If PGS meant we could shrink the navy or close down some bases to save some cash I might be a little more open to it.
All F-35 threads will be locked, and supporters publicly outed or banned.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #235 on: December 30, 2012, 10:39:53 pm »
I might be for PGS if it saved us in other areas. But there is a reason we have hundreds of bases all over the world, alliances, and a massive navy. Its all with the purpose of being "forward deployed" anyway. Mix that in with the missile shields we have been developing... PGS is just one more expensive way to do the same things we already spent/spend a bunch of money on already.

 If PGS meant we could shrink the navy or close down some bases to save some cash I might be a little more open to it.
The difference between 'Global Strike' the US can hit anywhere on earth now with B-2's from Whiteman or forward deployed to Guam or Diego Garcia but it is not 'prompt'. Why do you think the US is looking at this concept, along with various hypersonic missiles. becasue there is a potential unique target set that cannot be reached in a prompt manner.
If you drew 60 minute 'attack time' circles around Reapers, bombers or fighters planes around North Korea or Iran there would be huge swaths of territory that could not be reached in 60 minutes notwithstanding the fact that in a crisis you would have to have hundreds of them in the air at all times possibly week after week. And they may not make it to the target anyway. I think that might be more costly than a few missiles submarine launched intermediate range missiles on a SSGN.
Secondly I think it would also be a great way to 'exercise' the solid rocket, re-entry vehicle, guidance and other key missile technologies industrial base.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline TaiidanTomcat

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 863
  • "A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #236 on: December 30, 2012, 11:48:07 pm »
Quote
The difference between 'Global Strike' the US can hit anywhere on earth now with B-2's from Whiteman or forward deployed to Guam or Diego Garcia but it is not 'prompt'. Why do you think the US is looking at this concept, along with various hypersonic missiles. becasue there is a potential unique target set that cannot be reached in a prompt manner.
If you drew 60 minute 'attack time' circles around Reapers, bombers or fighters planes around North Korea or Iran there would be huge swaths of territory that could not be reached in 60 minutes notwithstanding the fact that in a crisis you would have to have hundreds of them in the air at all times possibly week after week. And they may not make it to the target anyway. I think that might be more costly than a few missiles submarine launched intermediate range missiles on a SSGN.

I honestly think that the "kill anything in an hour" is going to be super expensive no matter how you slice it. Not only that but you have to have the kind of real time intel that positively confirms that something is indeed happening, get that info to the proper civilian authorities, and then launch and destroy that threat in under sixty minutes with their decision. If its come down to this magical "we have 60 minutes or less scenario" its already too late. I know no one wants to hear that, but at that point PGS is a last second reaction to wheels that are already in motion and at which point there has already been a massive failure in intel.

Our political doctrine has almost always given the enemy the first shot. typically tensions are high before a war anyway. ITs not like we don't have assests in the middle east, is not like we don't have assets in north korea. ITs not like we aren't constantly spying on them and watching for escalation or war like intentions. Your scenario hinges on us not noticing anything wrong and then just like in hollywood, one hour before the attack we uncover their sinister plans and PGS saves the day. Like I said if we are learning about this an hour before it happens, its already too late.

Lets think about what would happen if we suddenly found out that North Korea or Iran was going to launch a nuke in 60 minutes, and kind of gauge the United States and global reaction to that. Just kind of pause and ponder that for a second.

Quote
Secondly I think it would also be a great way to 'exercise' the solid rocket, re-entry vehicle, guidance and other key missile technologies industrial base.

Then lets fund that because has other applications that could maybe someday lead to a plausible PGS, rather than the other way around.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2012, 11:55:38 pm by TaiidanTomcat »
All F-35 threads will be locked, and supporters publicly outed or banned.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #237 on: December 31, 2012, 06:54:37 am »
Quote
The difference between 'Global Strike' the US can hit anywhere on earth now with B-2's from Whiteman or forward deployed to Guam or Diego Garcia but it is not 'prompt'. Why do you think the US is looking at this concept, along with various hypersonic missiles. becasue there is a potential unique target set that cannot be reached in a prompt manner.
If you drew 60 minute 'attack time' circles around Reapers, bombers or fighters planes around North Korea or Iran there would be huge swaths of territory that could not be reached in 60 minutes notwithstanding the fact that in a crisis you would have to have hundreds of them in the air at all times possibly week after week. And they may not make it to the target anyway. I think that might be more costly than a few missiles submarine launched intermediate range missiles on a SSGN.

I honestly think that the "kill anything in an hour" is going to be super expensive no matter how you slice it. Not only that but you have to have the kind of real time intel that positively confirms that something is indeed happening, get that info to the proper civilian authorities, and then launch and destroy that threat in under sixty minutes with their decision. If its come down to this magical "we have 60 minutes or less scenario" its already too late. I know no one wants to hear that, but at that point PGS is a last second reaction to wheels that are already in motion and at which point there has already been a massive failure in intel.

Our political doctrine has almost always given the enemy the first shot. typically tensions are high before a war anyway. ITs not like we don't have assests in the middle east, is not like we don't have assets in north korea. ITs not like we aren't constantly spying on them and watching for escalation or war like intentions. Your scenario hinges on us not noticing anything wrong and then just like in hollywood, one hour before the attack we uncover their sinister plans and PGS saves the day. Like I said if we are learning about this an hour before it happens, its already too late.

Lets think about what would happen if we suddenly found out that North Korea or Iran was going to launch a nuke in 60 minutes, and kind of gauge the United States and global reaction to that. Just kind of pause and ponder that for a second.

Quote
Secondly I think it would also be a great way to 'exercise' the solid rocket, re-entry vehicle, guidance and other key missile technologies industrial base.

Then lets fund that because has other applications that could maybe someday lead to a plausible PGS, rather than the other way around.

Then you believe it is a weapon looking for a problem rather than a problem that was identified and a weapon solution arrived at to meet that set of threats? Meaning that the Pentagon has determined we don't really need this but it would be cool to have or at different times the Pentagon has said, damn we could take out target 'A' but we have nothing within X amount of time from the target I wish we had a prompt strike capability.
You might be right the Pentagon has developed weapons for both cases  :o
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline TaiidanTomcat

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 863
  • "A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #238 on: December 31, 2012, 08:25:24 am »
Then you believe it is a weapon looking for a problem rather than a problem that was identified and a weapon solution arrived at to meet that set of threats? Meaning that the Pentagon has determined we don't really need this but it would be cool to have or at different times the Pentagon has said, damn we could take out target 'A' but we have nothing within X amount of time from the target I wish we had a prompt strike capability.
You might be right the Pentagon has developed weapons for both cases  :o

This is what I believe:

*we will spend billions developing PGS and each missile will cost in the millions. And we will never have as many as we would like.

*in ten years "cool to have" may be forces in the strength we have right now after all these cuts that are coming up

*The missiles will fly at the speed of the intelligence community, and civilian decision makers not whatever their MPH stat says.

as for the the North Korean and Iran nuclear scenarios you have posited I will ask what you feel the PGS missiles should be targeted at before commenting further  :)
All F-35 threads will be locked, and supporters publicly outed or banned.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #239 on: December 31, 2012, 04:12:23 pm »
Sandia Plays Key Role in Hypersonic WeaponBy Charles D. Brunt / Journal Staff Writeron Thu, Dec 27, 2012 Sandia National Laboratories is a key player in the Pentagon’s race to develop an unmanned “hypersonic” vehicle that can travel at least five times the speed of sound and strike a target anywhere in the world within an hour. The Sandia News Lab, an in-house weekly, published a story this summer, detailing the labs’ role and what it called the first successful test flight of the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon. The lengthy story outlined the Nov. 17, 2011, 2,485-mile flight from a test facility at Kauai, Hawaii, and displayed a rendering of a conical device with fins. Although the story was seen by thousands and remains easily available to the public online, both Sandia and the Defense Department have refused Journal requests to discuss the multi-million-dollar project or interview engineers or scientists involved with it. Sandia Labs spokeswoman Heather Clark, who wrote the May story, referred reporters to her story and further interview requests to the Department of Defense.
 This is an illustration of the U.S. Army’s Advanced Hypersonic Vehicle that appeared in the Sandia National Laboratories’ inhouse weekly. The hypersonic project is one of a handful that the Pentagon hopes will result in an unmanned vehicle that can strike a target anywhere in the world within an hour.
Although no images of the Army’s Advanced Hypersonic Weapon have been made public, a June 2011 environmental impact report includes this computer-generated model.
The DOD issued a release immediately after the test. But DOD spokeswoman Lt. Col. Melinda F. Morgan said this month that “appropriate personnel” at the Defense Department declined to be interviewed. The Pentagon’s ultimate goal is to develop a reusable hypersonic cruise vehicle that can take off from a conventional military runway and strike targets 10,357 miles away within an hour, according to Globalsecurity.org, a website for military policy research. Defense planners say the ability to strike enemy targets faster than existing missiles can provide a strong non-nuclear deterrent to rogue dictators and terrorists. At hypersonic speeds, a military attack would have vastly outperformed, for example, the Tomahawk-guided missiles fired at Osama bin Laden’s al Qaida training camps in Afghanistan in 1998. By the time the Tomahawks reached their targets, bin Laden, who had been at one of the camps, was miles away, according to published reports.
 
The development of various prototypes of hypersonic vehicles is overseen by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency as part of the Pentagon’s Prompt Global Strike program. Among the handful of hypersonic projects the Pentagon has funded – at the rate of about $2 billion in the past decade – is the Army’s Advanced Hypersonic Weapon. Sandia National Labs is involved in the development of that vehicle’s rocket booster, the glide vehicle, the guidance fin system and the abort system, according to the Sandia Lab News article.
 
Hypersonic flight Since the 1960s, engineers have been trying to sustain hypersonic flight, but with limited success. Hypersonic speeds pose a myriad of challenges, ranging from control issues to the intense heat generated by friction as the craft moves through the lower atmosphere. Even with advanced materials, the craft’s surface temperature is likely to exceed 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit at Mach 6, and 5,600 degrees at Mach 8, according to Globalsecurity.com. Meanwhile, the craft’s internal instruments and payloads have to remain operational. Despite those challenges, hypersonic flight is viewed as the next evolutionary step in non-nuclear warfare and commercial space travel. Unlike conventional bombs, the hypersonic weapon’s immense destructive power results from its kinetic energy – the energy resulting from its mass and incredible speed. No images of the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon have been made public, but a June 2011 environmental impact report prepared by the U.S. Army’s Space and Missile Defense Command includes a computer-generated model labeled “Advanced Hypersonic Weapon: Hypersonic Glide Body.” The image published with the Sandia Lab News article also shows a conical body with rocket-like fins.
 
Based on those images, the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon has a cone-shaped “glide body” that is carried into space by a conventional rocket. At an undisclosed altitude, the craft separates from the rocket and begins a controlled descent through the atmosphere, reaching hypersonic speeds before smashing into its target or, during developmental testing, into the Pacific Ocean. Testing continues Although the Pentagon will not say how fast the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon can go, a hypersonic vehicle being developed by Lockheed Martin under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency – called the Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 – traveled at 20 times the speed of sound before going out of control and splashing into the Pacific Ocean during an Aug. 11, 2011, test. The Sandia Lab News story regarding the Nov. 17, 2011, test flight of the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon said that project is under the direction of the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command. The test vehicle was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility at Kauai, Hawaii. It flew its “non-ballistic glide trajectory at hypersonic speed” before splashing down 2,485 miles away at the Army’s Reagan Test Site on the Kwajalein Atoll, the Lab News reported. About 50 Sandia employees viewed the test, which represented about four years of work for the lab. The project involved up to 200 employees, the article said. It quoted David Keese, director of Integrated Military Systems Development Center 5400, as saying the flight had many firsts: the first time a Sandia-developed booster had flown a low-altitude, long-range horizontal flight path at the edge of the Earth’s atmosphere; the first time eight grid fins were used to stabilize a U.S. missile system and the first time a glide vehicle flew at hypersonic speeds at such altitude and range. “The objective of the test was to collect data on hypersonic boost-glide technologies and test range performance for long-range atmospheric flight. Mission emphasis was on aerodynamics; navigation, guidance and control; and thermal protection technologies,” the article said. Data collected during that test were to be used by the Department of Defense to model and develop future hypersonic vehicles and technologies. Neither Sandia nor the DOD would comment on Sandia’s current or future role with the program.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #240 on: December 31, 2012, 07:06:49 pm »
From "Conventional Prompt Global Strike and Long-Range Ballistic Missiles: Background and Issues", Congressional Research Service, 2012:

"The need for prompt long-range, or global, strike capabilities has been addressed in general defense policy studies, such as the 2001, 2006, and 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Reports. The 2001 QDR noted that the U.S. defense strategy “rests on the assumption that U.S. forces have the ability to project power worldwide.”4 The 2006 QDR expanded on the need for prompt global strike capabilities, noting that they would provide the United States with the ability “to attack fixed, hard and deeply buried, mobile and re-locatable targets with improved accuracy anywhere in the world promptly upon the President’s order.” This QDR went on to call for the deployment of a prompt global strike capability, using Trident submarine-based ballistic missiles armed with conventional warheads, within two to four years.5 The 2010 QDR also noted that “enhanced long-range strike capabilities are one means of countering growing threats to forward- deployed forces and bases and ensuring U.S. power projection capabilities.” It noted that DOD is pursuing a number of programs to meet this need, and, as a part of this effort, 'plans to experiment with conventional prompt global strike prototypes.'"

CPGS is not about the HVT mission, it's about power projection and deterrence. While the HVT mission makes for good fiction, the real issues that CGPS is intended to address are quite different.

Offline chuck4

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 803
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #241 on: January 02, 2013, 03:42:30 pm »
It seems to me the issue with using PGS as deterence against an organized rogue nuclear power actually about to use its nuclear weapons are:
 
1.  If the rogue power deploys its nuclear weapon on road mobile TELs, prompt global strike won't be prompt enough.   You have maybe 5 minutes, tops, between when the TEL stops and when the missile launches.
2.  If rogue power deploys its nuclear weapons in silos, you will have little warning of imminent use, especially if the enemy knows of PGS and avoids tipping his hand diplomatically or through other advance warning signs.
 
The only time when PGS will work is if the rougue nuclear power deploys its weapons on crude, non-storable, liquid fuelled rockets on above group platforms.   Then the preparation required would actually last long enough and be sufficiently visible for you to detect it and attack it in time with PGS.
 
Admittedly that is currently the level of technology available to North Korea or Iran should they want to launch a nuclear device at the US.   But if they are contended with launching a weapon against a regional adversary, they can probably manage some TEL and either storable fuel liquid rocket, or solid rocket.
 

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #242 on: January 02, 2013, 03:59:33 pm »
It seems to me the issue with using PGS as deterence against an organized rogue nuclear power actually about to use its nuclear weapons are:
 
1.  If the rogue power deploys its nuclear weapon on road mobile TELs, prompt global strike won't be prompt enough.   You have maybe 5 minutes, tops, between when the TEL stops and when the missile launches.
2.  If rogue power deploys its nuclear weapons in silos, you will have little warning of imminent use, especially if the enemy knows of PGS and avoids tipping his hand diplomatically or through other advance warning signs.
 
The only time when PGS will work is if the rougue nuclear power deploys its weapons on crude, non-storable, liquid fuelled rockets on above group platforms.   Then the preparation required would actually last long enough and be sufficiently visible for you to detect it and attack it in time with PGS.
 
Admittedly that is currently the level of technology available to North Korea or Iran should they want to launch a nuclear device at the US.   But if they are contended with launching a weapon against a regional adversary, they can probably manage some TEL and either storable fuel liquid rocket, or solid rocket.
 

There was an article I read that said the Trident re-entry vehicle could be made accurate enough that a silo would be within its 'non-explosive' crater.
 
So with silos or TELs (they would have to be parked somewhere prior to the order to disperse) PGS would be a preemptive strike tool in times of international crisis. You could also target warhead sites for NBC weapons prior to mating on the missiles. Dictators like to keep the warheads separate because they don't usually trust subordinates totally. Also this would equate to more aimpoints initially for the US or its allies.
 
It would be more useful to do this with conventional warheads than nukes where you would have to wait, probably, until after enemy use. You make a mistake and it is better to have used a 1000 lbs tungston rod than a 475kt W88 IMHO.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #243 on: January 02, 2013, 06:35:48 pm »
There was an article I read that said the Trident re-entry vehicle could be made accurate enough that a silo would be within its 'non-explosive' crater.

E2/LETB tail kits would provide enough accuracy for a kinetic kill against a silo, yes.

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #244 on: January 02, 2013, 06:50:02 pm »
From AFSC High Frontier, 2/2009 http://www.afspc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090224-115.pdf :

"Three warheads were being considered for a portion of the $100 million in FY 2008 funding Congress allocated for PGS and critical technology demonstrations. Textron System’s BLU- 108 Sensor Fuzed submunition, Sandia National Laboratory’s (SNL) “Rods from God,” and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s (LLNL) “Hell Storm” warheads were evaluated as possible PGS warhead solutions.

The BLU-108 represented the utilization of existing conven- tional munition concepts in PGS. The BLU-108 PGS warhead concept contains 10 submunitions each with four “smart” skeet warheads. The skeet’s explosively formed penetrator (EFP) is the kill mechanism of the warhead. The one-pound copper EFP, moving at hypersonic speeds, performs a kinetic energy kill of the target, thus minimizing collateral damage. The CBU- 97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon and the AGM-154 Joint Stand-Off Weapon utilize the BLU-108. However, Textron Systems must modify the BLU-108 for placement in a hypersonic delivery system, successfully demonstrating hypersonic dispense while slowing down to transonic speeds (350 - 750 miles per hour or Mach 0.8 to 1.2), and deploying its submunitions.

Both SNL and LLNL have designed a kinetic energy pro- jectile (KEP) warhead that delivers various sized fragments at the intended target. The characteristics of an ideal hypersonic warhead are quite simple: preserve and deposit the maximum warhead kinetic energy onto the target and maximize its lethal area across a target set ranging from hard to soft targets (i.e., a command and control bunker, terrorist training camp, etc.). Both SNL and LLNL have considered these characteristics in the design of their warheads with each having fundamental dif- ferences.

SNL originally designed “Rods from God” for the Navy’s CTM as a near-term CPGS solution. LLNL designed “Hell Storm” to be scalable and fit multiple delivery and booster sys- tems for the mid- to long-term CPGS solutions. The SNL design is limited to a KEP-only capability while the LLNL design has both a KEP and a penetrator capability combined into a single warhead. LLNL’s “Hell Storm” warhead provides greater mili- tary utility, because of the KEP/penetrator capability across the defined PGS target set. The LLNL design provides a uniform fragment distribution over a larger target area while depositing more of the available kinetic energy when compared to other KEP designs."

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #245 on: January 23, 2013, 10:02:54 am »
Top secret source provided this link - Ok not really  ;D
 
http://www.afa.org/hbs/transcripts/2012/10-11-2012%20PPT.pdf
 
 
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #247 on: January 25, 2013, 06:53:34 am »
http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/us-military-could-redefine-global-strike-weapons/

Watch them water it all the way down to a Tomahawk launched from a sub.  Then it won't cost any extra money at all and they can still say they have "Prompt Global Strike".  These guys should be politicians.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #248 on: January 25, 2013, 12:07:45 pm »
Meanwhile:Russia to Vet Hypersonic Arms in Mid-2013Jan. 24, 2013   
 
Trials for an experimental line of Russian hypersonic armaments is set to begin in the middle of this year, Agence-France Presse reported.
   
Russia has resumed hypersonic-weapon development activities previously halted around the time of the Soviet Union's collapse. The United States is pursuing similar technology, which could deliver strikes over great distances in place of ICBMs.  Meanwhile, Moscow is set to sell 36 nuclear-capable strategic bombers to China, United Press International reported on Wednesday. Russia would initially transfer one-third of the Tu-22M3 aircraft and then ship the remaining planes at a later date.  The long-distance bomber would extend Beijing's reach over the East China Sea, South China Sea and western Pacific Ocean. Still, a number of specialists in China have voiced reservations over the planned procurement.  The Soviet-era plane's delivery capabilities cannot compete with U.S. B-1 and B-2 bombers, said Col. Du Wenlong, an expert with the People's Liberation Army Academy of Military Science.  "Chances for the Tu-22M3 to join the Chinese air force as a strategic strike bomber are not high," Du suggested in comments to Hubei TV. 
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #249 on: February 24, 2013, 12:11:57 pm »
From Boeing's website - Strategic Missile Page
 
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/ic/icbmsys/index.html
 
I have never seen a 'basing mode' picture before and while yes it is just a picture interesting nontheless.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline DSE

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 444
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #250 on: March 29, 2013, 10:41:33 am »
Congress Provides $90 Million Plus-Up For New Hypersonic Weapon Test Congress has provided an additional $90 million in fiscal year 2013 funds to enable the Pentagon to gear up for a second test of its Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, according to a congressional source and legislative documents.

http://defensenewsstand.com/index.php?option=com_ppvuser&view=login&return=aHR0cDovL2RlZmVuc2VuZXdzc3RhbmQuY29tL2NvbXBvbmVudC9vcHRpb24sY29tX3Bwdi9JdGVtaWQsMjkwL2lkLDI0MjkyODgv

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #251 on: March 29, 2013, 12:17:28 pm »
From Boeing's website - Strategic Missile Page
 
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/ic/icbmsys/index.html
 
I have never seen a 'basing mode' picture before and while yes it is just a picture interesting nontheless.

What is love? Baby dont hurt me, dont hurt me no more.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=IRMuAQAAEBAJ

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #252 on: March 29, 2013, 12:30:05 pm »
From Boeing's website - Strategic Missile Page
 
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/ic/icbmsys/index.html
 
I have never seen a 'basing mode' picture before and while yes it is just a picture interesting nontheless.

What is love? Baby dont hurt me, dont hurt me no more.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=IRMuAQAAEBAJ

Looking at that patent I can't help but think, "damn, we sure like to complicate things".  What's wrong with sticking it in a tube at the factory and cold-launching the damn thing like the Russians?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #253 on: April 20, 2013, 04:52:41 pm »
DOD Cuts Conventional Prompt Global Strike Funding, Eyes New Test The Pentagon has more than halved its budget request for an effort designed to strike targets worldwide in less than an hour, electing to beef up spending on intermediate-range concepts instead, according to budget documents
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11153
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #254 on: April 20, 2013, 06:06:25 pm »
ATK had a concept some years ago up on their site for an IRBM.  Something like three per D-5 tube on an SSBN. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #255 on: May 30, 2013, 11:03:25 pm »
ATK had a concept some years ago up on their site for an IRBM.  Something like three per D-5 tube on an SSBN. 

There was the 36" diameter Sub Launched IRBM (and even a land based version called the "Forward Based IRBM") both gone from the website  :'( 
 
 
Conventional Prompt Strike Plans Not Included In Subcommittee's Mark
       
How House lawmakers plan to authorize funding for a program designed to strike worldwide targets in under an hour using conventional weapons remains to be seen, as the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee failed to include any details in its recent mark-up of the fiscal year 2014 authorization bill.
 
----------------------------
Don't know what this means but hopefully it does not mean finding has been zeroed out!!
----------------------------
 
No Demo
       
The Air Force Research Lab's munitions directorate has canceled a technology demonstration for its High Speed Strike Weapon (HSSW) capability and is instead "pursuing an alternate strategy" for updating industry on its research, an Air Force Materiel Command spokeswoman told Inside the Air Force this week. AFRL announced the cancellation on the Federal Business Opportunities website last week. HSSW is being designed as an air-breathing, hypersonic precision round and is intended to improve the effectiveness of fifth-generation aircraft against anti-access, aerial-denial capabilities. Despite the cancellation, HSSW remains a strongly supported program, according to the spokeswoman.
 
--------------------------------
 
AFRL Flagship Weapon Technology Program On Schedule And On Budget
       
An effort within the Air Force Research Lab to stabilize research and transition technology concepts for the High Velocity Penetrating Weapon program has been largely successful but could be complicated by budget cuts.
 
-----------------------------------
It's like the 90's all over again EVERY defense article about a particular weapons systems includes some form of 'but budget cuts on the horizon will cut, cancel...............'
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline dark sidius

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 364
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #256 on: June 03, 2013, 02:31:15 pm »
We understand nothing X-51 have a success and they cancel the HSSW who is the step after, what is the problem with new technology? since 2 decade we see no inovations and no concept falling in real life for what? where is the HTV-2 program new flight for futur? all of the hypersonic program are cancel program after program its very suspicious. How can you penetrate a high defensive area if you cancel all the tools to do that?

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2038
  • I am not actually here.
Re: US Prompt Global Strike Capability
« Reply #257 on: June 03, 2013, 04:10:51 pm »
We understand nothing X-51 have a success and they cancel the HSSW who is the step after, what is the problem with new technology?

HSSW has been cancelled, but the efforts related to it are ongoing.

since 2 decade we see no inovations and no concept falling in real life for what? where is the HTV-2 program new flight for futur?

HTV-2x is succeeded by the new HX program.
AHW is also still ongoing.

all of the hypersonic program are cancel program after program its very suspicious. How can you penetrate a high defensive area if you cancel all the tools to do that?

There is a long, long history behind penetration aids. You seem to be equating these R&D programs with something along those lines, when that was not a primary goal.

Offline dark sidius

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 364