US Hypersonics - Prompt Global Strike Capability

In_A_Dream

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 3, 2019
Messages
363
Reaction score
230
It only seems necessary for the US to develop a hypersonic warhead if current ballistic missiles are not up to the task of deterrence. That seems like a hard sell right now; neither Russia or China have significant ABM defenses (outside Moscow). Also it isn't clear that China is developing a nuclear boost glide warhead, although Russia is known to operate one in very small numbers.

The US still seems in the early stages of hypersonic research and infrastructure development. Further testing and improvements should allow a break out capability to be quickly realized in the future if necessary. Any future ballistic missile (GBSD) should be designed with a glider payload in mind as a future option, but I don't think this is particularly hard to do - Avangarde flies on a Soviet vintage booster.
With where China is headed, it'd probably be prudent to assume they have a nuclear capable BG vehicle.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
799
Regardless, it doesn't really change the deterrence logic. China has no defense against US ballistic RVs.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
799
Regardless, it doesn't really change the deterrence logic. China has no defense against US ballistic RVs.
How do we know they're not working on ABMs? They certainly have in the past and have tested several ASATs.

China May Have Operational ASAT Program, Reports Say | Aviation Week Network

I suspect China is working on ABM systems, but they have no historical programs to refer back to and would be starting from scratch in that effort compared to even Russia. The US of course has an extensive amount of research and testing (and deployments) of ABM weapons up to simulated ICBM targets, but even the US has an extremely limited ability to influence an ICBM attack. It seems wildly unlikely the Chinese have any current or breakout capability with regard to ICBM/SLBM RV interception. At a minimum, such a capability would be known to the US defense establishment even if it wasn't known in open source. You can't fire an ABM missile or BM simulator without an IR signature that can be detected from orbit. Plus almost any ballistic missile test involves issuing warnings to civilian aircraft across a wide patch of sky. The PRC tested the DF-21D against a floating target last year. The USAF was able to monitor the test with an RC-135, most likely as a result of the air traffic notices that had to be given ahead of time.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,727
Reaction score
3,693
Regardless, it doesn't really change the deterrence logic. China has no defense against US ballistic RVs.
How do we know they're not working on ABMs? They certainly have in the past and have tested several ASATs.

China May Have Operational ASAT Program, Reports Say | Aviation Week Network

I suspect China is working on ABM systems, but they have no historical programs to refer back to and would be starting from scratch in that effort compared to even Russia.

FJ ABM - Wikipedia


5108-c08a0660f836f5879b5179893d5f2757.jpg fanji-1-image01.jpg

fanji-1-image04.jpg
 
Last edited:

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
799
Regardless, it doesn't really change the deterrence logic. China has no defense against US ballistic RVs.
How do we know they're not working on ABMs? They certainly have in the past and have tested several ASATs.

China May Have Operational ASAT Program, Reports Say | Aviation Week Network

I suspect China is working on ABM systems, but they have no historical programs to refer back to and would be starting from scratch in that effort compared to even Russia.

FJ ABM - Wikipedia


View attachment 647861 View attachment 647862

View attachment 647863

Mea culpa, I'd not heard of it. Probably because it never went to operation. Presumably the warhead was nuclear, given that vintage? I suppose nothing stops the Chinese from breaking with the US practice of conventional interception, but deployment of an effective system would not be quick or go unnoticed. At a minimum, the ABM radars needed to operate any missile defense of any kind ought to be pretty obvious when in operation. I believe China operates a limited number of these looking towards the island chain, but I don't believe any existing system faces towards the pole. The Russians on the other hand have ringed their country with ABM radars, which presumably is a response to US SSBNs which could theoretically launch from almost any direction.

I still think that conventional RVs are enough for the coming decade and that basic research and infrastructure build up, along with the introduction of the first round of conventional weapons (AGM-183, CPS, LRHW) should be the US priorities. Shoe horning a W-93 into a large hypersonic glider can wait. As far as we know, China hasn't done this yet and Russia is counting theirs as part of their New START total, which means it doesn't increase their strategic deterrent.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,727
Reaction score
3,693
Regardless, it doesn't really change the deterrence logic. China has no defense against US ballistic RVs.
How do we know they're not working on ABMs? They certainly have in the past and have tested several ASATs.

China May Have Operational ASAT Program, Reports Say | Aviation Week Network

I suspect China is working on ABM systems, but they have no historical programs to refer back to and would be starting from scratch in that effort compared to even Russia.

FJ ABM - Wikipedia


View attachment 647861 View attachment 647862

View attachment 647863

Mea culpa, I'd not heard of it. Probably because it never went to operation. Presumably the warhead was nuclear, given that vintage? I suppose nothing stops the Chinese from breaking with the US practice of conventional interception, but deployment of an effective system would not be quick or go unnoticed. At a minimum, the ABM radars needed to operate any missile defense of any kind ought to be pretty obvious when in operation. I believe China operates a limited number of these looking towards the island chain, but I don't believe any existing system faces towards the pole. The Russians on the other hand have ringed their country with ABM radars, which presumably is a response to US SSBNs which could theoretically launch from almost any direction.

I still think that conventional RVs are enough for the coming decade and that basic research and infrastructure build up, along with the introduction of the first round of conventional weapons (AGM-183, CPS, LRHW) should be the US priorities. Shoe horning a W-93 into a large hypersonic glider can wait. As far as we know, China hasn't done this yet and Russia is counting theirs as part of their New START total, which means it doesn't increase their strategic deterrent.
Can't really wait on the W-93. Our nuclear warhead infrastructure is decrepit as it is. They need the exercise.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
799
I don't think there is anything else in the pipeline except the W88 modernization. I agree that we definitely need new warhead production sooner rather than later. I just don't think we need it to be hypersonic for the moment; we just need something that comes down at Mach 20-30 and goes bang.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,727
Reaction score
3,693
I don't think there is anything else in the pipeline except the W88 modernization. I agree that we definitely need new warhead production sooner rather than later. I just don't think we need it to be hypersonic for the moment; we just need something that comes down at Mach 20-30 and goes bang.
China isn't the only potential adversary.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
799
I don't think there is anything else in the pipeline except the W88 modernization. I agree that we definitely need new warhead production sooner rather than later. I just don't think we need it to be hypersonic for the moment; we just need something that comes down at Mach 20-30 and goes bang.
China isn't the only potential adversary.

I don't think Russia capable of setting up a capable ABM system outside of Moscow right now, if only for financial reasons. So I consider the deterrent is intact for the foreseeable future. Just to be clear, I have no problem with the US developing a hypersonic nuclear weapon, but I think there a lot of other much higher priorities in the hypersonic realm right now and money is tight. Right now it seems like its an open question if the replacement nuclear cruise missile gets funded.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
523
I don't think there is anything else in the pipeline except the W88 modernization. I agree that we definitely need new warhead production sooner rather than later. I just don't think we need it to be hypersonic for the moment; we just need something that comes down at Mach 20-30 and goes bang.
If you want to deliver nuclear earth penetrating weapons by ICBM/SLBM the stall speeds on the some of the BGVs look to be
within the air-dropped EPW survivable impact velocities.
 

Attachments

  • NNSA-Fy21-stockpile.png
    NNSA-Fy21-stockpile.png
    111.1 KB · Views: 40

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
3,158
Reaction score
523

Attachments

  • AEOLUS_ A System Concept for Precise Delivery of Mars Scientific.pdf
    1.2 MB · Views: 20

quellish

I don’t read The Drive. The Drive reads me.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,234
Reaction score
364
If you want to deliver nuclear earth penetrating weapons by ICBM/SLBM the stall speeds on the some of the BGVs look to be
within the air-dropped EPW survivable impact velocities.

The original Common Aero Vehicle requirements had deployment of conventional air dropped munitions in mind. It was going to slow down to aircraft like speeds and deploy SDB, WCMD, etc. A very different vehicle than AHW/SWERVE though.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
799

Forest Green

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
806
Reaction score
598
1725 miles is an oddly specific range for something that presumably can trade velocity for distance, up until the glider's stall speed. It also would be just far enough to reach Taiwan from Guam but *not* be able to range the mainland.
Depends where it's fired from I guess. Who knows?
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,346
Reaction score
2,946

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
11,346
Reaction score
2,946
 

JG87

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
38
Reaction score
25

I wonder how soon it'll be before we have Chinese ships patrolling off the coasts of Hawaii, Cali, & the PNW with Hypersonic missiles
Tomahawks have a 20.6 in diameter. The CPS has 34.5 in diameter according to Naval News. I am guessing that is the diameter. It does not say in the diagram. It just shows a 34.5 inch line across the missile. I am guessing it is much longer as well. I am not a math guy, but I am sure you guys can figure out how many can fit and in what. Current best guess for the weight is around 16,300 pounds.

Chinese ships off the US coast? Sooner than we think, they are building up fleet support ships. Give them a few years.
 
Last edited:

14yellow14

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Nov 7, 2020
Messages
25
Reaction score
68
Probably the quickest solution is to replace each AGS with an APM module, so 6 CPS missiles in total makes sense.

E0Q5HxEUcAIyyQa.jpg
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,727
Reaction score
3,693
Why would you think only one module could fit in place of an AGS? Would not be at all surprised if you could fit two or three of those 3-round modules at EACH AGS site.

DDG-1000-USS-Zumwalt-061.jpg
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
217
Reaction score
331
Maybe this helps:

Conventional Prompt Strike - Advanced Payload Modules]: OPN funds required to procure 12 Advanced Payload Modules (APM) from the associated vendor.

zpqyPjm.png
12 Modules for 3 shps.

Unless Im failing... What 6th grade math, which may be likely, that comes out to 4 per ship.

Which is 12 Hypersonics missiles per ship. Which assuming they are anything like the Viriginias that be 24 tomahawk size missile as well...

All in all a solid amount of weapons for a vessel that size for a after thought mod.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,733
Reaction score
1,426
Why would you think only one module could fit in place of an AGS? Would not be at all surprised if you could fit two or three of those 3-round modules at EACH AGS site.

View attachment 667664
even w 18 one shot wonders against the vastness of Asia and or Europe. what does it protect itself with? We can call it the 1/16th warship.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,733
Reaction score
1,426

The tendency in China to view U.S. PGS as a weapon of preemption and to place it in a crossdomain context—with linkages to ground, sea, space, and cyberspace—may guide Chinese military doctrine toward a more assertive posture, with an emphasis on use of asymmetric capabilities early in a conflict. This would provide a new twist to Beijing’s “active defense” and has begun to appear in its cyberspace research to counter Washington’s PGS-related systems. In the conventional field, Chinese views on preemption with the DF-21D have their own destabilizing influence. Yet, this is even more precarious in the nuclear realm, if such views are applied to China’s WU-14 development. Combined with concerns over Washington quickly, stealthily, and accurately decapitating Beijing’s nuclear and conventional arsenal or command and control centers, these shifts are likely to propel China’s seeking of other systems it regards as PGS, such as reusable unmanned hypersonic spacecraft and scramjets.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
217
Reaction score
331
Why would you think only one module could fit in place of an AGS? Would not be at all surprised if you could fit two or three of those 3-round modules at EACH AGS site.

View attachment 667664
even w 18 one shot wonders against the vastness of Asia and or Europe. what does it protect itself with? We can call it the 1/16th warship.
How about those 80 missile cells it has built in? Those are staying in. Like really, even assuming a 50 percent reliabity rate on 40 loaded SM Weapons, which is the worse case scenerio and Raytheaon will kill itself if the Standards was shown to be that bad which the system never had, that still means that someone has to toss 20 missile at one ship to hit it let alone sink it. Which is no easy feat.

Or by being the next hardest thing to find to a sub. It a stealth ship, it going to be a pain to find to attack, and even when it is attack that stealthing will make any missile seeker jobs very hard to lock on and guided into the small target in a hoard of decoys.

Maybe also its not the vastness of Asia or Europe but select countries which have all their factories, HQs, military bases etc, in clusters were even one of these "one shot wonders" will do solid damage let alone 18 of them or any other missile toss their way.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top