Register here

Author Topic: US Prompt Global Strike Capability  (Read 248285 times)

Offline seruriermarshal

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 847
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: 2032
  • 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: 2032
  • 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: 10896
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: 8475
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: 2032
  • 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: 8475
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: 847
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: 2032
  • 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: 847
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: 2032
  • 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: 847
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: 2032
  • 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.