US Hypersonics - Prompt Global Strike Capability

bobbymike said:
dark sidius said:
Yes Bobbymike, but balistic missile must mean very risky with a possibility of nuclear response with confusion of this type of weapon. Darpa will work on tactical hypersonic weapon instead of global hypersonic, in the last iterations on A/Week a hypersonic X-51 like and a new hypersonic tactical glider, interesting, and surface and air launch.

If the US had IRBM's and was using them against China for example I don't know who would be shooting nukes back at us because of it? Especially when you consider China has overtly said they will probably use hundreds of ballistic missiles against Taiwan and against our carriers.

We cannot respond because of some innocuous warning 'We are afraid they might be nukes' Maybe it is because they don't want the US to develop this class of weapons IMHO

Still can't understand why folks are still talking about ballistic..Response options must be able for all scenarios, world wide and thus present uncertainly leading to potential nuclear miscalculation, not to mention they will increasing be vulnerable to early warning based countermeasures and even intercept. tactical hypersonics especially if maneuver capability is developed seems to suffer none of the problems.
 
jsport said:
bobbymike said:
dark sidius said:
Yes Bobbymike, but balistic missile must mean very risky with a possibility of nuclear response with confusion of this type of weapon. Darpa will work on tactical hypersonic weapon instead of global hypersonic, in the last iterations on A/Week a hypersonic X-51 like and a new hypersonic tactical glider, interesting, and surface and air launch.

If the US had IRBM's and was using them against China for example I don't know who would be shooting nukes back at us because of it? Especially when you consider China has overtly said they will probably use hundreds of ballistic missiles against Taiwan and against our carriers.

We cannot respond because of some innocuous warning 'We are afraid they might be nukes' Maybe it is because they don't want the US to develop this class of weapons IMHO

Still can't understand why folks are still talking about ballistic..Response options must be able for all scenarios, world wide and thus present uncertainly leading to potential nuclear miscalculation, not to mention they will increasing be vulnerable to early warning based countermeasures and even intercept. tactical hypersonics especially if maneuver capability is developed seems to suffer none of the problems.

You'll want to inform, well, just about any potential adversary, as they don't seem to have any qualms about using them.
 
sferrin said:
jsport said:
bobbymike said:
dark sidius said:
Yes Bobbymike, but balistic missile must mean very risky with a possibility of nuclear response with confusion of this type of weapon. Darpa will work on tactical hypersonic weapon instead of global hypersonic, in the last iterations on A/Week a hypersonic X-51 like and a new hypersonic tactical glider, interesting, and surface and air launch.

If the US had IRBM's and was using them against China for example I don't know who would be shooting nukes back at us because of it? Especially when you consider China has overtly said they will probably use hundreds of ballistic missiles against Taiwan and against our carriers.

We cannot respond because of some innocuous warning 'We are afraid they might be nukes' Maybe it is because they don't want the US to develop this class of weapons IMHO

Still can't understand why folks are still talking about ballistic..Response options must be able for all scenarios, world wide and thus present uncertainly leading to potential nuclear miscalculation, not to mention they will increasing be vulnerable to early warning based countermeasures and even intercept. tactical hypersonics especially if maneuver capability is developed seems to suffer none of the problems.

You'll want to inform, well, just about any potential adversary, as they don't seem to have any qualms about using them.

ABM strategies are not the subject of this thread, so unsure what you are even talking about.
 
Pentagon, Lawmakers Deal Blows to Navy Fast-Strike Missile Effort
July 31, 2013By Elaine M. Grossman

WASHINGTON -- Senate appropriators on Tuesday moved to cancel a U.S. Navy program to develop a medium-range missile for launch by fast-attack submarines, but only after top Defense Department brass significantly restricted the Virginia Payload Module in a secret meeting late last year, Global Security Newswire has learned. Lawmakers on the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee said their markup of fiscal 2014 funding legislation for the Defense Department “terminates the Virginia Payload Module due to high cost, risk, and lack of validated requirement.” The move comes just 18 months after the Pentagon’s high-profile proposal to use the new missile aboard Virginia-class submarines as a non-nuclear means of quickly hitting targets almost anywhere around the world. Defense leaders envision so-called “prompt-strike” weapons as potential substitutes for atomic-armed, submarine-based missiles or ICBMs when faced with urgent threats, such as a North Korean nuclear weapon being prepared for launch or a key terrorist leader spotted at a hideout.

A five-page statement released on Tuesday describes markup highlights, but a detailed text of the subcommittee’s version of the bill was not yet available. This is the second consecutive year in which the same panel has criticized and cut funds for the Navy project. The idea behind the wonky-sounding “module” has been to alter the design of today’s Virginia-class attack submarines when new vessels are built in the future, so that they could carry additional Tomahawk land-attack cruise missiles. Eventually, the structure of the submerged vessels could also be modified for launch of as many as 12 medium-range, conventionally armed ballistic missiles. The latter could involve what is roughly estimated at billions of dollars in investment in submarine redesign, and in missile development and production. Then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta publicly unveiled the concept in January 2012, describing the Virginia Payload Module as “a design that will allow new Virginia-class submarines to be modified to carry more cruise missiles and develop an undersea conventional prompt-strike option.”

The Senate lawmakers’ action -- which still must go through a full committee markup, floor vote and conference with the House before it could be signed into law by the president -- follows a little-known setback for the Navy project at the hands of a secretive military review panel, Global Security Newswire has confirmed. The Pentagon’s Joint Requirements Oversight Council -- a top-level panel that determines what equipment the U.S. military needs for its assigned missions – last November determined in closed-door session that future technologies for prompt strike must do a better job of balancing affordability with desired warfighting capabilities, according to sources. For the first time, a mix of short-, medium- and long-range weapons would be considered for undertaking the non-nuclear mission previously called “prompt global strike” -- only now, the “global” might be dropped in recognition of varying degrees of reach. To help defray the cost of prompt strike, the top Pentagon panel reportedly said that if a ballistic missile for Virginia-class submarines is to go forward, the new weapon and submarine alterations would have to be paid for out of the Navy’s own coffers. The effort could no longer be funded from a multiservice spending account for conventional prompt strike, Adm. James Winnefeld, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is said to have determined in February. Given intense pressures on the Navy to finance a top-priority shipbuilding program in the coming years -- to include a new nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarine to replace today’s Ohio-class vessels -- the service’s independent development of an expensive new weapon for attack boats appears unlikely, issue experts say.

Lawmaker concern about Navy investment in conventional prompt-strike weapons over the years since the idea was first hatched has extended beyond tight budgets. Congress killed the first concept for a non-nuclear version of the Trident D-5 missile that was to be based on Ohio-class submarines, citing concerns about strategic “ambiguity” or miscues. Specifically, worries revolve around the notion that Russia, for example, might misinterpret the launch of a conventionally armed Trident missile for the onset of an atomic war using the missile’s nuclear-armed lookalike, prompting a dangerous nuclear salvo in retaliation. It is unclear whether the Senate lawmakers, in referring to “risk” this week, had in mind the Virginia Payload Module’s technological, financial or operational risk. On a related matter, might the emerging inclusion of short- and medium-range weapons for the conventional prompt-strike mission water down military capabilities by making attacks not only less “global” in reach, but also less “prompt”? After all, the original military requirement for this type of operation was for a long-range weapon that could be launched against a target anywhere around the globe within just 60 minutes of a commander’s order. This was based on an assumption that shorter-range conventional weapons might not happen to be deployed where they are needed most when an urgent target arises. In fact, “shorter can be prompter,” Lt. Gen. James Kowalski, commander of the Air Force Global Strike Command, said on Wednesday at a Capitol Hill breakfast gathering. “You know, it takes a long time to go a long ways.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The US is bound and determined to give away capabilities and cede territory to the enemy my disgust continues unabated.
 
It look like the same turn of the Hypersonic Darpa program, who focuse now on tactical system instead of global.
 
bobbymike said:
WASHINGTON -- Senate appropriators on Tuesday moved to cancel a U.S. Navy program to develop a medium-range missile for launch by fast-attack submarines, but only after top Defense Department brass significantly restricted the Virginia Payload Module in a secret meeting late last year, Global Security Newswire has learned. Lawmakers on the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee said their markup of fiscal 2014 funding legislation for the Defense Department “terminates the Virginia Payload Module due to high cost, risk, and lack of validated requirement.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The US is bound and determined to give away capabilities and cede territory to the enemy my disgust continues unabated.

China and Russia must never tire at laughing at the gutless idiots running the show over here.
 
sferrin said:
bobbymike said:
WASHINGTON -- Senate appropriators on Tuesday moved to cancel a U.S. Navy program to develop a medium-range missile for launch by fast-attack submarines, but only after top Defense Department brass significantly restricted the Virginia Payload Module in a secret meeting late last year, Global Security Newswire has learned. Lawmakers on the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee said their markup of fiscal 2014 funding legislation for the Defense Department “terminates the Virginia Payload Module due to high cost, risk, and lack of validated requirement.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The US is bound and determined to give away capabilities and cede territory to the enemy my disgust continues unabated.

China and Russia must never tire at laughing at the gutless idiots running the show over here.

sferrin - Do you think Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev, et al are in hell saying, man if could have held on for a few more years the US would elect the worst politicians EVAH and wreck the country!

And on the budgetary front with the next round of defense cuts/sequestration two months away Obama proposes $91 billion/year more in non-defense discretionary spending.
 
bobbymike said:
And on the budgetary front with the next round of defense cuts/sequestration two months away Obama proposes $91 billion/year more in non-defense discretionary spending.

And you're surprised why? Have people not been catching on that this is how The Party breeds members and remains relevant when it's factually farsical?
 
sferrin said:
"SWERVE" being Sandia Winged Energetic Reentry VEhicle?

Correct. Some of the best diagrams of SWERVE actually come from papers related to the Aeolus concept from NASA, Sandia, and San Jose State.
SWERVE was the testbed for several extremely important technologies in the 80s.
 
High-Speed Warhead Tested at Holloman

Members of the 846th Test Squadron at Holloman AFB, N.M., conducted a test of a Kinetic Energy Projectile warhead at the base's high-speed test track, according to a Pentagon release. The Oct. 23 test supported the Pentagon's efforts to develop a conventional precision global strike weapon. During the test, the sled accelerated the warhead to speeds of more than three times the speed of sound, states the Oct. 25 release. The test "demonstrated that the warhead functions in a flight-representative environment," said Susan Hurd, special assistant to the Pentagon's director of strategic warfare. The test also collected data to "update and verify our computer modeling and simulation codes that enable us to predict warhead performance," she said. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory designed and developed the warhead. The CPGS concept calls for a weapon capable of flying at hypersonic speeds to strike targets quickly and precisely in difficult-to-reach places around the globe. (AFPS report by Army Sgt. 1st Class Tyrone C. Marshall Jr.)
 
Aeolus huh? Looked it up . . . 3m CEP, 4000 seconds/12,000 km flight from the entry point, up to 5000 km cross-range, [font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]and submunitions! This was all in the Martian [/font]atmosphere to be sure, but still . . .
 
George Allegrezza said:
Aeolus huh? Looked it up . . . 3m CEP, 4000 seconds/12,000 km flight from the entry point, up to 5000 km cross-range, and submunitions! This was all in the Martian atmosphere to be sure, but still . . .

Yeah, not like it was using GPS/INS and a terminal radar seeker..... to hit a moving aircraft. In the 1980s. Now that would be nifty.

Unfortunately a number of hypersonic efforts in the late 1980s went the way of the RPV. Consolidated and then abandoned in the name of jointness. Including some things very, very relevant to this thread.
 
Quellish please list these 80's projects :D or if they are here at SP a link would be great.

Slightly longer story

WASHINGTON (AFPS) --
The Defense Department announced yesterday the successful testing of an advanced conventional precision effects warhead, a critical part of a national effort to establish a conventional prompt strike capability. This capability will contribute to the country to defend its interests with precision weapons at hypersonic speeds. During an interview with American Forces Press Service, Susan Hurd, special assistant to the director of strategic warfare, called the test a significant technology development advancement. "The successful execution of this high-speed sled test of a Kinetic Energy Projectile warhead was a necessary step in the progression to a conventional prompt strike capability," she said. "Now that we've demonstrated that the warhead functions in a flight representative environment we're one important step closer to that goal."

"High performance computer modeling and simulation as well as a series of small scale and static tests have already been done on this warhead," Hurd said. "But in order to assess its performance in flight conditions you have to do the dynamic test – you have to do the sled test. Hurd emphasized this test was "critical" in order to subject the warhead to the "dynamic environment it would see in flight."

"The sled test was designed to be representative of conditions of flight and target engagement for the warhead," she said. The 846th Test Squadron conducted the successful test at the Holloman High Speed Test Track, located on Holloman Air Force Base, N.M.. Hurd noted that the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory was responsible for the design and development of the warhead itself, while the event was managed by the U.S Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center Holloman High Speed Test Track also fielded a wide range of diagnostics and instrumentation to collect data and designed the sled train that was used to push the warhead down the track to extremely high velocity, she added.

During the test, according to Hurd, the sled train exceeded 3,500 feet-per-second – greater than Mach 3 or three times the speed of sound. In addition to testing the warhead under the dynamic conditions of flight, a second objective, Hurd noted, was to collect data to "update and verify our computer modeling and simulation codes that enable us to predict warhead performance". This program used high performance computers to design the very complex warhead. The data collected during this test will be applicable to all CPGS concepts under consideration, according to the DOD news release. "The CPGS program is focused on developing technologies in support of developing a future concept," she said.

Hurd emphasized that the CPGS technology development and demonstration program is using a nationally integrated team."We're working across all the military services," she said. "We're working with Department of Energy and DOD laboratories and agencies like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Experts from all over the country are working together to develop a conventional prompt strike capability for the nation."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Director of Strategic Warfare that would be my dream job!!

https://www.aiaa.org/uploadedFiles/Events/Conferences/2012_Conferences/2012-Strategic-and-Tactical-Missile-Systems-and-Missile-Sciences-Conference/Detailed_Program/Hulcher%20Bio.pdf

Current director Gregory Hulcher - Do I see a Strangelovian gleam in his eye? ;)
 
bobbymike said:
Quellish please list these 80's projects :D or if they are here at SP a link would be great.

Most but not all have threads on here. How they are connected may not be immediately obvious and would require sharing some more information, which would probably turn into yet another thread more about hyperbole than community. I will leave those kinds of discussions to other people.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=20444.0
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3054.0.html
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,3721.0.html
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,19982.0.html
 
Lawmakers Soften Submarine-Related Prompt Global Strike Requirement


Posted: Dec. 18, 2013

Lawmakers have softened a requirement seeking information on Pentagon plans to launch a Conventional Prompt Global Strike weapon from a submarine in a fiscal year 2014 authorization bill proposal being debated by the Senate this week.

The Senate Armed Services Committee initially wanted to prohibit the Pentagon from spending any money for submarine-related Conventional Prompt Global Strike capabilities until 60 days after the Defense Department's policy shop delivers a report addressing concerns over launching a conventional missile from a submarine. There's a concern that a submarine-launched CPGS missile could be mistaken for a nuclear launch and inadvertently trigger nuclear war.

But in an agreement between House and Senate authorizers, released last week, lawmakers scrapped this requirement, and instead prescribed that defense officials can spend up to 75 percent of the funds until the required report is delivered.

That report should address ambiguity problems, as well as "potential verification measures, any target sets the secretary believes a submarine-launched conventionally-armed missile could reach that a missile on board another platform could not reach, the comparative cost considerations of submarine-launched conventional missiles and such systems launched by other platforms," the agreement reads.

The full House passed the agreement last week. The Pentagon is closely examining CPGS delivery options from the sea, Defense Department policy chief James Miller said this summer (Inside the Pentagon, July 18). "We are looking in particular at the studies of that," Miller said at the time, referring to a sea-based CPGS option, adding that DOD is also "looking in particular at boost-glide, although a . . . typical ballistic approach is also something that we would consider." -- Jordana Mishory
 
bobbymike said:
Lawmakers Soften Submarine-Related Prompt Global Strike Requirement


Posted: Dec. 18, 2013

Lawmakers have softened a requirement seeking information on Pentagon plans to launch a Conventional Prompt Global Strike weapon from a submarine in a fiscal year 2014 authorization bill proposal being debated by the Senate this week.

The Senate Armed Services Committee initially wanted to prohibit the Pentagon from spending any money for submarine-related Conventional Prompt Global Strike capabilities until 60 days after the Defense Department's policy shop delivers a report addressing concerns over launching a conventional missile from a submarine. There's a concern that a submarine-launched CPGS missile could be mistaken for a nuclear launch and inadvertently trigger nuclear war.

But in an agreement between House and Senate authorizers, released last week, lawmakers scrapped this requirement, and instead prescribed that defense officials can spend up to 75 percent of the funds until the required report is delivered.

That report should address ambiguity problems, as well as "potential verification measures, any target sets the secretary believes a submarine-launched conventionally-armed missile could reach that a missile on board another platform could not reach, the comparative cost considerations of submarine-launched conventional missiles and such systems launched by other platforms," the agreement reads.

The full House passed the agreement last week. The Pentagon is closely examining CPGS delivery options from the sea, Defense Department policy chief James Miller said this summer (Inside the Pentagon, July 18). "We are looking in particular at the studies of that," Miller said at the time, referring to a sea-based CPGS option, adding that DOD is also "looking in particular at boost-glide, although a . . . typical ballistic approach is also something that we would consider." -- Jordana Mishory

"There's a concern that a submarine-launched CPGS missile could be mistaken for a nuclear launch and inadvertently trigger nuclear war."
yep

"looking in particular at boost-glide," maybe

although a . . . typical ballistic approach is also something that we would consider." scary
 
jsport said:
bobbymike said:
Lawmakers Soften Submarine-Related Prompt Global Strike Requirement


Posted: Dec. 18, 2013

Lawmakers have softened a requirement seeking information on Pentagon plans to launch a Conventional Prompt Global Strike weapon from a submarine in a fiscal year 2014 authorization bill proposal being debated by the Senate this week.

The Senate Armed Services Committee initially wanted to prohibit the Pentagon from spending any money for submarine-related Conventional Prompt Global Strike capabilities until 60 days after the Defense Department's policy shop delivers a report addressing concerns over launching a conventional missile from a submarine. There's a concern that a submarine-launched CPGS missile could be mistaken for a nuclear launch and inadvertently trigger nuclear war.

But in an agreement between House and Senate authorizers, released last week, lawmakers scrapped this requirement, and instead prescribed that defense officials can spend up to 75 percent of the funds until the required report is delivered.

That report should address ambiguity problems, as well as "potential verification measures, any target sets the secretary believes a submarine-launched conventionally-armed missile could reach that a missile on board another platform could not reach, the comparative cost considerations of submarine-launched conventional missiles and such systems launched by other platforms," the agreement reads.

The full House passed the agreement last week. The Pentagon is closely examining CPGS delivery options from the sea, Defense Department policy chief James Miller said this summer (Inside the Pentagon, July 18). "We are looking in particular at the studies of that," Miller said at the time, referring to a sea-based CPGS option, adding that DOD is also "looking in particular at boost-glide, although a . . . typical ballistic approach is also something that we would consider." -- Jordana Mishory

"There's a concern that a submarine-launched CPGS missile could be mistaken for a nuclear launch and inadvertently trigger nuclear war."
yep

"looking in particular at boost-glide," maybe

although a . . . typical ballistic approach is also something that we would consider." scary

Oh brother. Really? Have any of the hundreds of ballistic missiles launched over the years kicked off a nuclear war? No.
 
Have any of the hundreds of ballistic missiles launched over the years closely approched or overflown countries that have the capabilities to detect and respond "in kind"?

This is a genuine question, not a sarcastic one.

I would imagine that if the answer is yes, the nation's involved were pre-warned... (But with weeks/months notice, not the minutes notice that could be the case with an operational use of this type of system)

Edit to correct typos, grammar etc. (Hungover from the work Christmas party last night)
 
Mat Parry said:
Have any of the hundreds of ballistic missiles launched over the years closely approched or overflown countries that have the capabilities to detect and respond "in kind"?

Why would say, the US need to overfly Russia to hit the Middle East when launched from a submarine? Now an ICBM launched from Vandenberg aimed at the Middle East? That's another thing. IMO it's flight time would be too long though to be considered "prompt" anyway though. There was an instance during OIF were Saddam was spotted entering a building. 12 minutes later a B-1B had put 4 2000lb bombs on that building. And they still didn't get him.
 
Agreed, the time Saddam was confirmed to be in a restaurant is a good example for the use of a prompt global strike system.

However, osama bin hidin in Tora Bora is another example and geographically speaking lobbing an ICBM into this region would have been much more problematic... (I imagine)

Edit: more drunken typing
 
Mat Parry said:
Agreed, the time Saddam was confirmed to be in a restaurant is a good example for the use of a prompt global strike system.

However, osama bin hidin in Tora Bora is another example and geographically speaking lobbing an ICBM into this region would have been much more problematic... (I imagine)

Edit: more drunken typing

They'd have had to have known the specific CAVE he was in to get him with a conventional weapon. They knew the area. That's about it. Short of tossing a gigaton ground-bursting nuke at him there's no way they were going to get him with a missile.
 
True and this is a hypothetical discussion about a weapon system that did not exist at the time. But for the sake of argument, suppose OBL's whereabouts in Tora bora were known and it was feasible to execute with a conventional warhead (all hypothetical too).

Even a sub launched option would make both China and Russia....nervous?
 
Mat Parry said:
True and this is a hypothetical discussion about a weapon system that did not exist at the time. But for the sake of argument, suppose OBL's whereabouts in Tora bora were known and it was feasible to execute with a conventional warhead (all hypothetical too).

Even a sub launched option would make both China and Russia....nervous?

1) China does not really have the early detection technologies Russia does and might not even detect a sub launched middle east strike
2) Russia's concern is this - they don't want the US to develop this technology and who's constant refrain of 'anything the US does will cause an arms race or WWIII' is tiresome especially from the KGB thug president.
 
JFC Fuller said:
quellish said:
jjnodice said:
Article on Chinese hypersonics test:

http://freebeacon.com/china-conducts-first-test-of-new-ultra-high-speed-missile-vehicle/

Perhaps we should rename the thread to: Gates, "They have prompt global strike...."

It's a MARV. Only about 50 years behind the US, and 40(?) behind Russia.

The question is whether it is powered (as the Russians have reportedly been working on), or whether it was "simply" a MARV.

Also, there is a huge difference between a Pershing II-type MARV and a boost-glide type vehicle, which this appears to be.
 
CAPITOL HILL: Sometimes it can seem as if one lives on several different planets at the same time while living here in Washington. This afternoon saw three top GOP lawmakers decrying China after it apparently tested (we don’t know if the test was successful) a hypersonic vehicle.

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/01/house-gop-defense-heavies-slam-china-after-hypersonic-missile-test/
 
Frustration runs high...Sorry for the rant.
 

Attachments

  • 44885806.jpg
    44885806.jpg
    85.8 KB · Views: 656
http://freebeacon.com/admiral-chinese-hypersonic-weapons-complicate-security-environment/
 
No Acceleration Of USAF Hypersonic Research Despite Chinese Launch

Posted: Jan. 30, 2014

After decades of research, the Air Force is still many years away from fielding a hypersonic weapon system capable of delivering a warhead into denied airspace, according to a Jan. 29 statement from the service. The weapon system is seen as the ideal capability since its Mach 5-plus speed allows it to penetrate denied airspace before ground-based defense systems have time to react. Building on results from its X-51 unmanned scramjet demonstration aircraft, the service said it hopes to demonstrate other technologies necessary to provide militarily useful capabilities "towards the end of this decade," according to a statement provided by Air Force Materiel Command spokeswoman Estella Holmes. It also appears the service will maintain its current hypersonics research and development tempo in the near term, despite a recent hypersonic missile launch by China's People's Liberation Army in January, which caused concern among lawmakers and defense officials.

"We are demonstrating high-speed weapon technologies in partnership with [the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency]. Development and demonstration efforts will begin later this year, as previously planned," the statement said in response to questions from Inside the Air Force. The service's current objective, the statement said, is to further advance all of the requisite technologies needed to bring a hypersonic weapon system to technology readiness level of six, which reflects a system/subsystem model or prototype which can be demonstrated in a relevant environment. The list of requisite technologies which need to be further matured include: high temperature materials; thermal protection systems; scramjet propulsion; thermal management; guidance, navigation and flight controls; and high-speed fuzing, the statement said.

Currently, much of the nation's hypersonics R&D is done through joint programs run by the Air Force and DARPA at the Air Force Research Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, OH. "The Air Force's hypersonic program is a multi-faceted, phased approach," the statement said. "We are looking at both air-breathing scramjet-powered systems similar to X-51 as well as boost glide systems." In the near term the Air Force hopes to field a scramjet-powered expendable hypersonic vehicle, comparable in size to the Boeing X-51 "WaveRider" demonstrator. The X-51 had its most successful flight test in May 2013, reaching speeds above Mach 5 after being dropped from a B-52 over the Pacific Ocean. In the mid to far term the Air Force hopes to develop technologies which will allow it to field larger, reusable hypersonic vehicles for space access applications.

"The Aerospace Systems Directorate [which is overseen by the AFRL] will continue to contribute a significant share of the funding to the overall hypersonic air vehicle portfolio in partnership with DARPA and other AFRL directorates," the statement said. Earlier this month the Pentagon said it observed a Jan. 9 Chinese flight test of a newly developed hypersonic missile, believed to be a boost-glide variant. In Jan. 13 statement responding to the launch, House Armed Services Committee members Michael Rogers (R-AL), Buck McKeon (R-CA) and Randy Forbes (R-VA) blamed budget cuts and dithering for U.S. delays in hypersonic weapon development. "While round after round of defense budget cuts have knocked America's technological advantage on its back, the Chinese and other nations push towards military parity with the United States, and in some cases, as in this one, they appear to be leaping ahead of us," the congressmen said. "We have dithered for three decades now, delaying badly-needed replacement equipment for our troops." At a Jan. 28 House Armed Services Committee hearing, Frank Kendall, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, said spending cuts were undermining U.S. efforts to maintain military superiority, including in the area of hypersonics.

"On hypersonics, this is a good example of an area of technology that is going to move forward whether we invest in it or not," he said at the hearing. The Air Force Scientific Advisory Board is currently preparing a report into the technological readiness of hypersonic vehicles as one of its four key study tasks in fiscal year 2014. That report is due to be published in May 2015. -- James Drew
 
Navy Launches Study Competition For Sub-Launched, Hypersonic Weapons

Posted: Jan. 31, 2014

The Navy is moving ahead with plans to explore a submarine-launched weapon with hypersonic speed, issuing a solicitation for two-year industry trade studies to flesh out technology options and architecture for an intermediate-range conventional prompt global strike weapon. On Jan. 30, the Navy's Strategic Systems Programs office in Washington, DC, launched the competition as part of the Pentagon's fiscal year 2014 plan to investigate a launcher, missile and glide body for a weapon with potential game-changing capabilities -- including the means to reach targets anywhere in the world within about an hour or less without using a ballistic missile. "The goal of this effort is to develop and evaluate technology options and concepts with application to a broad range of potential intermediate range boost-glide Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) architectures," the request for proposal states. The Navy intends to award either one or two 13-month $5 million contracts in fiscal year 2014, each deal would include a $5 million option in FY-15 extending the project another 13 months, according to the document. "The industrial effort in this procurement is not intended to be a system-level development of a specific CPGS solution; instead, it is a technical trade study to evaluate technology options and compare the performance and technology cost considerations of these options," according to the statement of work.

All proposed concepts, according to the Navy, must conform with the objective that "the majority" of the weapon's trajectory be non-ballistic so that it is not confused with missiles in the U.S. inventory that carry nuclear weapons. "The notional test concept is a sea-based (submarine underwater-launched) approach, which provides a challenging set of constraints and technical trade factors, but the contractor analysis of technology options shall include applicability to both the notional test concept and other potentially applicable technology options," according to the solicitation. Winning contractors are expected to deliver trade studies that outline performance and factors that drive cost for the missile body, the glide body and launcher. "This assessment is for initial conceptual engineering and cost analysis purposes only: it does not reflect any endorsement by the Department of Defense nor does it reflect any policy considerations that may apply to any given concept (e.g., basing arrangements, treaty compliance, etc.)," the solicitation states. In October, DOD said it conducted a successful test of a component critical to the development of a conventional prompt global strike capability when the Air Force held a sled test of a prototype Kinetic Energy Projectile -- which moved at three times the speed of sound. It was the second of two planned ground tests. The Navy has a goal to conduct a first flight test of a conventional prompt strike capability by the end of fiscal year 2016, according to FY-14 budget documents.

The Navy has begun incorporating new payload tube in its Virginia-class submarines with the capability to launch more cruise missiles. The effort to design a Virginia Payload Module -- a nearly 100-foot extension that would be inserted in the center of the current Virginia-class configuration -- is focused on increasing space on the boat beginning in 2019 to carry as many as 40 Tomahawk cruise missiles, as compared to today's dozen, and adding other payload options. Among the other options is a potential undersea conventional prompt strike weapon, DOD officials have said. -- Jason Sherman
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom