US Hypersonics - Prompt Global Strike Capability

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.
 
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..
 
House Panel Urges Competition for Conventional Prompt-Strike Weapons
May 8, 2012 By Elaine M. Grossman Global Security Newswire

May-08--AHW.gif



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.”
 
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.
 
dark sidius said:
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.
 
DSE said:
dark sidius said:
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
bobbymike said:
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?
 
jjnodice said:
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.
 
bobbymike said:
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."
 
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.
 
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.
 
Its very difficult to say where are this programm I think a lot of works made on this technology are classified.
 
GeorgeA said:
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.
 
sferrin said:
GeorgeA said:
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?
 
bobbymike said:
sferrin said:
GeorgeA said:
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.
 
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.
 
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.

"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???
 
jjnodice said:
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.

"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.
 
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".
 
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.
 
sferrin said:
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.
 
bobbymike said:
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.
 
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.
 
DSE said:
sferrin said:
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) "
 
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?
 
sferrin said:
"the Army’s Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW) "

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.
 
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.
 
Nice companion report;

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL33067.pdf
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom