Register here

Author Topic: US Prompt Global Strike Capability  (Read 248643 times)

Offline quellish

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2034
  • 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: 850
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: 2034
  • 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: 2034
  • 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: 2034
  • 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: 850
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: 8489
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 administrationís 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 Britainís 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: 2034
  • 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: 10926
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: 2034
  • 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: 850
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: 10926
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.