US Hypersonics - Prompt Global Strike Capability

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,757
Reaction score
1,438
Time Critical targets (TCT) TELs, which are often missed, are the tgt, thus really a Arsenal ships launching many slower missiles like hunting TAcit Rainbow/ Thirsty Saber is the requirement. Lower Altitude to survive S-500 and follow on SAMs (out to 1000miles) rather than high hypers which are going to invite interception.

 
Last edited:

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
1,022
Unless Im failing... What 6th grade math, which may be likely, that comes out to 4 per ship.

The 12 IR-CPS per DDG-1000 class ship was reported back in June. I think that is the number they've landed on. The current VLS could also carry the SM-6 1B, and any other future weapon the Navy fields as part of its long range strike plan. I think 12 IR-CPS class weapons is a good number even for the LSC to shoot for. Eventually, a smaller form factor hypersonic weapon would be needed that would cost sub $10 Million and be fieldable in larger numbers. LRHW and IR-CPS is going to be reserved for a few very selective targets.

The Navy is planning to outfit each of its three DDG-1000 destroyers with a dozen long-range hypersonic strike missiles, eyeing a new cold-launch system for the Zumwalt-class ship as part of a new plan to arm by 2025 a surface ship rather than a nuclear-powered guided missile submarine with the Conventional Prompt Strike weapon. The service's fiscal year 2022 budget request reveals new details about plans for integrating CPS -- a new two-stage rocket paired with a common-hypersonic glide body...


Based on the Navy's new baseline (driven by Congress to a degree), they will outfit the first Zumwalt in FY-24, and look to conduct the first shot (EOC) in FY-25. The first Block V Virginia launch of IR-CPS will occur about three years later. Despite all the Army and Navy investments, the most credible and available hypersonic capability will come from the two AF programs as they have the shortest lead times (only delivering weapons and not platforms plus weapons).
 
Last edited:

Firefinder

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
218
Reaction score
332
Time Critical targets (TCT) TELs, which are often missed, are the tgt, thus really a Arsenal ships launching many slower missiles like hunting TAcit Rainbow/ Thirsty Saber is the requirement. Lower Altitude to survive S-500 and follow on SAMs (out to 1000miles) rather than high hypers which are going to invite interception.
So basically the USN plan to use Time On Target something using a combo of Hypers, JASSAM, and Tomahawks?

Which be a pain to defend against cause:

The Hypersonic missile coming in from on the high being the obvious target causing the systems to focus on look up allowing the JASSAM to sneak on in along with the Tomahawk which will make detection of the JASSAM even more unlikely. All of this happening at once means at least a few of the weapons will hit. Basically combine arms with with missiles.

And you seem to ignore the other use cases of the Hypersonics, like smacking ships while they are in port or supporting troops by taking out heavily defended targets like artillery or command centers. Being able to hit targets within 30 minutes from 1000 miles aways is too handy not to have.

And while they are sam bait, that is a double edge sword. Say you have a SAM that you are 80 percent sure that the US doesnt know about, do you fire at the hypersonic going in to delete the AO TOC and invite the hoard of Tomahawks waiting or do you wait to ambush the Carrier strikecraft? That is a major exercise that commanders will have to deal with.

Also it needs to be say that the only ships in the US that cant carry a tomahawk are Carriers and Amphilous assualt ships and they have planes that can carry Their own stealthy cruiser missiles so an Arsenal ship is just as a stupid idea as it was 20 years ago.
The 12 IR-CPS per DDG-1000 class ship was reported back in June. I think that is the number they've landed on.
I ment 4 of the 3 missile launcher pership there boss. Which be 12 missiles per ship, and is a solid amount.

Now if only we had more ships to put them on...

Then again that will be an amusing What IF?

Say all 32 Zumwalts are order and built.

Will we still refit them with the Hypersonic module since the gun be mostly working?
 

brownt62

Be kind to children.
Joined
Dec 18, 2012
Messages
12
Reaction score
10
What never ceases to amaze me is how far ahead the US were and how they then let themselves get behind.
I would argue that in the early 60’s the US could have chosen to completely overwhelm the USSR in the arms race (10,000 Minuteman missiles for example) and force meaningful disarmament but McNamara got scared by the Cuban missile crisis believing US seeking strategic superiority caused USSR to take risks that almost resulted in nuclear war.

The US strategy became one of parity or actually letting the Soviets catch up.

In my humble opinion prolonged the Cold War by decades.
Brilliant and i am dead serious
 

MihoshiK

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
245
Reaction score
199
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.
The Zumwalts are right now the only ships in the fleet capable of having hypersonics mounted. It's not just about being a credible threat, it's also about building operational experience with these kinds of weapons.
 
Last edited:

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,757
Reaction score
1,438
Unless Im failing... What 6th grade math, which may be likely, that comes out to 4 per ship.

The 12 IR-CPS per DDG-1000 class ship was reported back in June. I think that is the number they've landed on. The current VLS could also carry the SM-6 1B, and any other future weapon the Navy fields as part of its long range strike plan. I think 12 IR-CPS class weapons is a good number even for the LSC to shoot for. Eventually, a smaller form factor hypersonic weapon would be needed that would cost sub $10 Million and be fieldable in larger numbers. LRHW and IR-CPS is going to be reserved for a few very selective targets.
12 on a ship..not even worth commenting.."Few selective tgts" such a tgt rich environment is China or Russia again not worth commenting..
The Navy is planning to outfit each of its three DDG-1000 destroyers with a dozen long-range hypersonic strike missiles, eyeing a new cold-launch system for the Zumwalt-class ship as part of a new plan to arm by 2025 a surface ship rather than a nuclear-powered guided missile submarine with the Conventional Prompt Strike weapon. The service's fiscal year 2022 budget request reveals new details about plans for integrating CPS -- a new two-stage rocket paired with a common-hypersonic glide body...


Based on the Navy's new baseline (driven by Congress to a degree), they will outfit the first Zumwalt in FY-24, and look to conduct the first shot (EOC) in FY-25. The first Block V Virginia launch of IR-CPS will occur about three years later. Despite all the Army and Navy investments, the most credible and available hypersonic capability will come from the two AF programs as they have the shortest lead times (only delivering weapons and not platforms plus weapons).
As high energetics progress, launching hypers from aircraft still is the only sensible launch option. That might be why they have the shortest lead times... Short lead times might be because these surface creatures are not performing as advertised..cause everyone is drunk on hypersonics..as the critics point out. Every svc thinks they need hypersonics, basing is problem for the Army and size for performance is the problem for the USN. There are too expensive for a tgt rich widely dispersed battlespace and the USA DEVCOM already admitted it in public.

1000miles is not lng rng in Asia.
 

Firefinder

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
218
Reaction score
332
12 on a ship..not even worth commenting.."Few selective tgts" such a tgt rich environment is China or Russia again not worth commenting..
That still Twelve high level targets taken out on a ship. Which depend on what the targets are can really hamper the Chinese war effort. Any time one of these hit anywhere is going to give China a bad day no matter the target.

This just with Hypersonics, the Zumwalts are able carry tomahawks as well. Say 10 tomahawks launch follow a hour later by 6 HS missile will make the defenders life miserable if the US times it right.

And it been show nurmous times, some within the last few years, that the US is go at timing this type of deal right.

Then you have which targets to hit. Those small islands that China trying make will look will good with a few more holes in them.

1000miles is not lng rng in Asia.
Have you LOOKED at a map lately?

The Zumwalt can be chilling in the middle of the Philipines for example and still hit 200 miles inside of Southern China, sit 200 miles off of the EAST coast of Japan and hit nearly 500 miles, or chill of the east coast of South Korea in the Sea of Japan and hit 300 miles past Beijing. Or do circles in the Philippines Sea and hit any where from 400 to 600 miles in land.

1000 miles is more then enough range for the Pacific for a ship base weapon.

Especially a Stealth Ship like the Zumwalt that makes you have to put nearly half of you Search craft out to find it since the other ways like the Long Range Radars or Satillites will not work. Nope you are going to have have dozens of planes out there hunting for one ships and likely only know were it was once one of them goes off the air cause it ate a standard missile 40 odd miles out.

Edit: This will also make the Carrier life easier since it means that there are less planes out looking or attack it.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,757
Reaction score
1,438
800px-PLA_ballistic_missiles_range.jpg

The US Department of Defense stated in 2010 that China has developed and reached initial operating capability (IOC)[15] of a conventionally armed[16] high hypersonic[17] land-based anti-ship ballistic missile based on the DF-21. This is the first ASBM and weapon system capable of targeting a moving aircraft carrier strike group from long-range, land-based mobile launchers.[18][19][20] The DF-21D is thought to employ maneuverable reentry vehicles (MaRVs) with a terminal guidance system. Such a missile may have been tested in 2005-6, and the launch of the Jianbing-5/YaoGan-1 and Jianbing-6/YaoGan-2 satellites would give the Chinese targeting information from SAR (synthetic-aperture radar) and visual imaging respectively. The upgrades enhance China's ability to prevent US carriers from operating in the Taiwan Strait.[21] Some have also suggested China could develop a DF-21D with multiple reentry vehicles.
[22]

When your not interested in all out Nuclear War ships are easy.

It always amazes how little folks on this forum are willing to do their homework.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
1,022

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,757
Reaction score
1,438

DF-26


The DF-26 is an enhancement of the DF-21 with range increased to more than 5,000 km (3,100 mi). Its existence was confirmed[by whom?] in the mid-2010s but it had already been in service for several years.[11][49]

On 26 August 2020, a DF-26B was fired from Qinghai province into an area between Hainan and the Paracel Islands as a response to a U.S. U-2 spy plane entering into a no-fly zone during a Chinese live-fire naval drill the day earlier.[44]

CH-AS-X-13

Air-launched ballistic missile version of DF-21.[50][51] carried by H-6K.[52] The 3000 km range missile is scheduled for deployment in 2025.[53]

df-21 wiki
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
1,022
Sinking ships at 5,000 km using a maneuvering ballistic missile. I bet their next AsHM is going to be an ICBM so that these ships can be sunk leaving port from CONUS.

Has this ever been demonstrated by anyone (outside of wikipedia)?
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,757
Reaction score
1,438
PLAN civil/mil vessels of all types are thoughout the Indo-Pac to fine tune the tgting, beside the accelerating commercially available sat imagery.

Ships cant hide under trees like a SLRC could.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
1,022
PLAN civil/mil vessels of all types are thoughout the Indo-Pac to fine tune the tgting, beside the accelerating commercially available sat imagery.

Ships cant hide under trees like a SLRC could.

So I take it that no one has actually demonstrated sinking a military vessel at 5K Km / 3K miles using a ballistic missile? Not sure that we should just assume that this will be a piece of cake for them unless they actually demonstrate and prove it to be a credible way to destroy ships at those ranges before we draw the conclusion that the entire surface navy should be disbanded because it can be sunk from thousands of miles away with relative easy.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,757
Reaction score
1,438
The USN needed to flash a new shiny object w/ the failure of the EMRG, thus offensive hypers on ships.... The USn should focus on defense against everything..hypers, ballistics, cruise, hyper cruise..u name it.

The Army missed Pershing so also picked up the hyper fetish. Pershing delivered nukes ..different game. .Prsm seems to be mobile enough to make sense but the rest....Again Hyper AirDef makes since. For instance, Now the Russians w/ S-550 as super defense makes sense for them.

Air launched hypers makes some sense, but manned hyper aircraft to deliver short rg hyper a lot more to deliver deep.

If the USN doesn'r stop f..ing up the USn pac war will be over in 5 mins and the tugs might as well go out to escort the PLAN frigates into the Port of LA a .5hr later.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
1,022
How will they be able to "defend against everything"? Including those 5000 km anti-ship ballistic missiles that can sink ships as they leave port? If they are in danger of losing in 5 minutes, then at best more defensive capability might extend that to 8-9 minutes but that doen't matter much. Also, what's the point in having defenses if that is all they can do. Take away the surface ships and we won't need anything to defend in the first place so that'll save a lot of money. Perhaps we should consider disbanding the Navy altogether since they are incapable of surviving for longer than five minutes in a shooting war against the mighty PLA. :rolleyes:
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,757
Reaction score
1,438
How will they be able to "defend against everything"? Including those 5000 km anti-ship ballistic missiles that can sink ships as they leave port? If they are in danger of losing in 5 minutes, then at best more defensive capability might extend that to 8-9 minutes but that doen't matter much.

Hypersonic et al defense development is more important on onesies CFP. Existing atk capabilites aregood enough after surviving the onslaught. 1st u must survive
Also, what's the point in having defenses if that is all they can do. Take away the surface ships and we won't need anything to defend in the first place so that'll save a lot of money. Perhaps we should consider disbanding the Navy altogether since they are incapable of surviving for longer than five minutes in a shooting war against the mighty PLA. :rolleyes:
goofy sh..t not worth addressing:rolleyes:
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
1,022
goofy sh..t not worth addressing:rolleyes:

This was addressing the claim that the fight would be over in 5 minutes because the PLA would sink the US surface fleet from 3000 miles away. If that is "true" then we must end this discussion as all the defenses available in the world won't change that equation. You aren't going to out defend when your opponent has such a giant technology leap over you that they have such survivable ISR and targeting infrastructure (that you can't degrade) that allows them to sit on their mainland and sink ships west of Japan. By the time you develop a credible defense against this uber hypersonic capability they would have leapfrogged and would be capable of sinking ships out to San Diego using the ICBM version of their DF-21 family.

We can all play this game (attributing mythical abilities to a non-demonstrated capability of PLA while undermining the capability of the USN and the joint forces to counter it) so it isn't goofy at all.
 
Last edited:

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
1,022
they should both invest in scramjets.

There are more scramjet programs now in the hypersonic portfolio then non-scramjet efforts if one assumes LRHW/IRCPS is a common program (which it is). But those are tactical systems likely in the 500-1000 km range at best. The "prompt" in prompt strike (which was responding to a Congressional requirement) at close to 3,000 km pushes them to the LRHW/CPS platform. The Mid-range capability will likely see a mix of both boost glide (like OpFires) and scramjet systems (AF has had recent success with a couple of very large scramjet engines) while short ranged (sub 1000 km) systems will be purely scramjet (HACM, Screaming Arrow etc) besides some of the Quasi ballistic missiles like a follow on to the PrSM.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,201
Reaction score
802
Sinking ships at 5,000 km using a maneuvering ballistic missile. I bet their next AsHM is going to be an ICBM so that these ships can be sunk leaving port from CONUS.

Has this ever been demonstrated by anyone (outside of wikipedia)?

The PRC I believe used a DF-21 on a target barge early last year. As far as I know this was the only test against a sea target, though more recently they have apparently adopted large CV like targets that are moved on railroad tracks in the desert.

The problem for the PRC is that they have US assets patrolling right up against their shores so any weapons tests or telemetry can easily be monitored. They are very gun shy about actually testing anything over water for this reason, and additionally they are largely limited to the East and South China seas as they are ringed in by Russia-Korea-Japan-China-Philipines. There are surprisingly few places where aircraft can pass though the first island chain without entering the twelve mile limit of one of the numerous small islands of Japan or or the PI, with Taiwan and its outlying islands sitting right in the middle of those two barriers. The main access route for their patrols past the first chain is just southewest of Okinawa - a mere hundred miles from Kadena air base.

The PRC ability to provide tracking information against targets outside the first island chain seems rather minimal. They can't travel more than a hundred miles off their coast without being inside someone's radar coverage unless they are flying low.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,201
Reaction score
802
The PRC I believe used a DF-21 on a target barge early last year.
Were they successful and was their ISR and long range targeting capability contested during the test ?

They hit the target barge. As I stated, I find the PRC's ability to track targets outside the first island chain rather questionable. It seems likely they would largely be reliant on satellites or unescorted MPAs/HALE UAVs. Static targets of course are rather easy.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
1,022
Interesting that they hit it. The DOD statements and official China doc stops short of claiming that they were successful.
 

JG87

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
40
Reaction score
33
There will be three missiles CPS missiles in place of each gun. Six total. I have no clue about the VLS tubes, I am sure there is a plan in place for the MK 69 VLS tube :)
Source? The Naval News article doesn't mention numbers.
They may be speculating. I am guessing as well. I hope they can carry 12 total missiles. I know they US navy often buys a few items in case of damage, malfunction, ETC.
 
Last edited:

JG87

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
40
Reaction score
33
Time Critical targets (TCT) TELs, which are often missed, are the tgt, thus really a Arsenal ships launching many slower missiles like hunting TAcit Rainbow/ Thirsty Saber is the requirement. Lower Altitude to survive S-500 and follow on SAMs (out to 1000miles) rather than high hypers which are going to invite interception.
So basically the USN plan to use Time On Target something using a combo of Hypers, JASSAM, and Tomahawks?

Which be a pain to defend against cause:

The Hypersonic missile coming in from on the high being the obvious target causing the systems to focus on look up allowing the JASSAM to sneak on in along with the Tomahawk which will make detection of the JASSAM even more unlikely. All of this happening at once means at least a few of the weapons will hit. Basically combine arms with with missiles.

And you seem to ignore the other use cases of the Hypersonics, like smacking ships while they are in port or supporting troops by taking out heavily defended targets like artillery or command centers. Being able to hit targets within 30 minutes from 1000 miles aways is too handy not to have.

And while they are sam bait, that is a double edge sword. Say you have a SAM that you are 80 percent sure that the US doesnt know about, do you fire at the hypersonic going in to delete the AO TOC and invite the hoard of Tomahawks waiting or do you wait to ambush the Carrier strikecraft? That is a major exercise that commanders will have to deal with.

Also it needs to be say that the only ships in the US that cant carry a tomahawk are Carriers and Amphilous assualt ships and they have planes that can carry Their own stealthy cruiser missiles so an Arsenal ship is just as a stupid idea as it was 20 years ago.
The 12 IR-CPS per DDG-1000 class ship was reported back in June. I think that is the number they've landed on.
I ment 4 of the 3 missile launcher pership there boss. Which be 12 missiles per ship, and is a solid amount.

Now if only we had more ships to put them on...

Then again that will be an amusing What IF?

Say all 32 Zumwalts are order and built.

Will we still refit them with the Hypersonic module since the gun be mostly working?
The Zumwalts are way to expensive. The US should use any and all funding to rebuild ship/sub building capacity. We are going to need the ships to meet future requirements and rebuilding, upgrading and construction of new shipyards needs to be a top priority for the US Navy. #1 in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

Firefinder

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 6, 2019
Messages
218
Reaction score
332
Time Critical targets (TCT) TELs, which are often missed, are the tgt, thus really a Arsenal ships launching many slower missiles like hunting TAcit Rainbow/ Thirsty Saber is the requirement. Lower Altitude to survive S-500 and follow on SAMs (out to 1000miles) rather than high hypers which are going to invite interception.
So basically the USN plan to use Time On Target something using a combo of Hypers, JASSAM, and Tomahawks?

Which be a pain to defend against cause:

The Hypersonic missile coming in from on the high being the obvious target causing the systems to focus on look up allowing the JASSAM to sneak on in along with the Tomahawk which will make detection of the JASSAM even more unlikely. All of this happening at once means at least a few of the weapons will hit. Basically combine arms with with missiles.

And you seem to ignore the other use cases of the Hypersonics, like smacking ships while they are in port or supporting troops by taking out heavily defended targets like artillery or command centers. Being able to hit targets within 30 minutes from 1000 miles aways is too handy not to have.

And while they are sam bait, that is a double edge sword. Say you have a SAM that you are 80 percent sure that the US doesnt know about, do you fire at the hypersonic going in to delete the AO TOC and invite the hoard of Tomahawks waiting or do you wait to ambush the Carrier strikecraft? That is a major exercise that commanders will have to deal with.

Also it needs to be say that the only ships in the US that cant carry a tomahawk are Carriers and Amphilous assualt ships and they have planes that can carry Their own stealthy cruiser missiles so an Arsenal ship is just as a stupid idea as it was 20 years ago.
The 12 IR-CPS per DDG-1000 class ship was reported back in June. I think that is the number they've landed on.
I ment 4 of the 3 missile launcher pership there boss. Which be 12 missiles per ship, and is a solid amount.

Now if only we had more ships to put them on...

Then again that will be an amusing What IF?

Say all 32 Zumwalts are order and built.

Will we still refit them with the Hypersonic module since the gun be mostly working?
The Zumwalts are way to expensive. The US should use any and all funding to rebuild building capacity. We are going to need the ships to meet future requirements and rebuilding, upgrading and construction of new shipyards needs to be a top priority for the US Navy. #1 in my opinion.
There lines the rub.

The Navy cant shove the money around that way, well it kinda can but...

They dont have anywhere to take it from.

Well several ships are reaching the put of costing more to run then replace, so taking it out maintance is amazing stupid idea...

Next big money item is training and crewing the ships.... No Training Equal ships running into tankers cause they dont know how the ships works, Fitzgerald and McCain, and try not paying the servicemembers...

The rest of the money is bespoken on weapon updates, fuel, restocking, Marines, and other minor things the Navy needs to run.

So any new money needs to come from Congress and....

Not getting into that shitshow...

The Best way is for the navy to jsut out right retire the legacy ships, Ticos and LA subs, and solve the budget from those ships to the Yard while telling them to fix themselves.

Which while epic to see happen just for the reactions alone, one of the reactions is literally everyone of O7 UP getting the boot by Congress.

Funny enough if we kept the 32 Zumwalts we be in Far better position. Cause the Burke 3s are costing more then they would have since we had to pay to REBUILD ALL THE LINES FOR THE BURKES. And since all the Zumwalts lines are now close, we are in the same place for them as well. Hindsight is a right PITA.

This is not help by the fact we are going to start losing more ships then we replace here were quick cause those ships I mention? Are the 22 strong Tico class cruisers, which are older then I am and several are pushing 40 years. The FFGs be usefull but it be a few years before they are close to replacing the Ticos loses. Call it ten years then it be back were we are cause the first Burkes be pushing forty.

Need to start building ALOT of things now. Ships and yards...

Ingells can do 4 hulls at a time, they just need the money to pay for the workers. So two Burkes 3 and two CGX/DD(G)X is well within their ability and go long to even stuff out.

Get the other yards up and running?

We can shift the work to them as we update Ingells. Nicely solve most of the issues reasonably fast...

Well all issue but one.

Money.
 

Forest Green

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 11, 2019
Messages
812
Reaction score
606
They may be speculating. I am guessing as well. I hope they can carry 12 total missiles. I know they US navy often buys a few items in case of damage, malfunction, ETC.
I wonder if there'll be a subsequent weight saving and does that mean they can put the 57mm Bofors autocannons back?
 

JG87

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
40
Reaction score
33
Time Critical targets (TCT) TELs, which are often missed, are the tgt, thus really a Arsenal ships launching many slower missiles like hunting TAcit Rainbow/ Thirsty Saber is the requirement. Lower Altitude to survive S-500 and follow on SAMs (out to 1000miles) rather than high hypers which are going to invite interception.
So basically the USN plan to use Time On Target something using a combo of Hypers, JASSAM, and Tomahawks?

Which be a pain to defend against cause:

The Hypersonic missile coming in from on the high being the obvious target causing the systems to focus on look up allowing the JASSAM to sneak on in along with the Tomahawk which will make detection of the JASSAM even more unlikely. All of this happening at once means at least a few of the weapons will hit. Basically combine arms with with missiles.

And you seem to ignore the other use cases of the Hypersonics, like smacking ships while they are in port or supporting troops by taking out heavily defended targets like artillery or command centers. Being able to hit targets within 30 minutes from 1000 miles aways is too handy not to have.

And while they are sam bait, that is a double edge sword. Say you have a SAM that you are 80 percent sure that the US doesnt know about, do you fire at the hypersonic going in to delete the AO TOC and invite the hoard of Tomahawks waiting or do you wait to ambush the Carrier strikecraft? That is a major exercise that commanders will have to deal with.

Also it needs to be say that the only ships in the US that cant carry a tomahawk are Carriers and Amphilous assualt ships and they have planes that can carry Their own stealthy cruiser missiles so an Arsenal ship is just as a stupid idea as it was 20 years ago.
The 12 IR-CPS per DDG-1000 class ship was reported back in June. I think that is the number they've landed on.
I ment 4 of the 3 missile launcher pership there boss. Which be 12 missiles per ship, and is a solid amount.

Now if only we had more ships to put them on...

Then again that will be an amusing What IF?

Say all 32 Zumwalts are order and built.

Will we still refit them with the Hypersonic module since the gun be mostly working?
The Zumwalts are way to expensive. The US should use any and all funding to rebuild building capacity. We are going to need the ships to meet future requirements and rebuilding, upgrading and construction of new shipyards needs to be a top priority for the US Navy. #1 in my opinion.
There lines the rub.

The Navy cant shove the money around that way, well it kinda can but...

They dont have anywhere to take it from.

Well several ships are reaching the put of costing more to run then replace, so taking it out maintance is amazing stupid idea...

Next big money item is training and crewing the ships.... No Training Equal ships running into tankers cause they dont know how the ships works, Fitzgerald and McCain, and try not paying the servicemembers...

The rest of the money is bespoken on weapon updates, fuel, restocking, Marines, and other minor things the Navy needs to run.

So any new money needs to come from Congress and....

Not getting into that shitshow...

The Best way is for the navy to jsut out right retire the legacy ships, Ticos and LA subs, and solve the budget from those ships to the Yard while telling them to fix themselves.

Which while epic to see happen just for the reactions alone, one of the reactions is literally everyone of O7 UP getting the boot by Congress.

Funny enough if we kept the 32 Zumwalts we be in Far better position. Cause the Burke 3s are costing more then they would have since we had to pay to REBUILD ALL THE LINES FOR THE BURKES. And since all the Zumwalts lines are now close, we are in the same place for them as well. Hindsight is a right PITA.

This is not help by the fact we are going to start losing more ships then we replace here were quick cause those ships I mention? Are the 22 strong Tico class cruisers, which are older then I am and several are pushing 40 years. The FFGs be usefull but it be a few years before they are close to replacing the Ticos loses. Call it ten years then it be back were we are cause the first Burkes be pushing forty.

Need to start building ALOT of things now. Ships and yards...

Ingells can do 4 hulls at a time, they just need the money to pay for the workers. So two Burkes 3 and two CGX/DD(G)X is well within their ability and go long to even stuff out.

Get the other yards up and running?

We can shift the work to them as we update Ingells. Nicely solve most of the issues reasonably fast...

Well all issue but one.

Money
Time Critical targets (TCT) TELs, which are often missed, are the tgt, thus really a Arsenal ships launching many slower missiles like hunting TAcit Rainbow/ Thirsty Saber is the requirement. Lower Altitude to survive S-500 and follow on SAMs (out to 1000miles) rather than high hypers which are going to invite interception.
So basically the USN plan to use Time On Target something using a combo of Hypers, JASSAM, and Tomahawks?

Which be a pain to defend against cause:

The Hypersonic missile coming in from on the high being the obvious target causing the systems to focus on look up allowing the JASSAM to sneak on in along with the Tomahawk which will make detection of the JASSAM even more unlikely. All of this happening at once means at least a few of the weapons will hit. Basically combine arms with with missiles.

And you seem to ignore the other use cases of the Hypersonics, like smacking ships while they are in port or supporting troops by taking out heavily defended targets like artillery or command centers. Being able to hit targets within 30 minutes from 1000 miles aways is too handy not to have.

And while they are sam bait, that is a double edge sword. Say you have a SAM that you are 80 percent sure that the US doesnt know about, do you fire at the hypersonic going in to delete the AO TOC and invite the hoard of Tomahawks waiting or do you wait to ambush the Carrier strikecraft? That is a major exercise that commanders will have to deal with.

Also it needs to be say that the only ships in the US that cant carry a tomahawk are Carriers and Amphilous assualt ships and they have planes that can carry Their own stealthy cruiser missiles so an Arsenal ship is just as a stupid idea as it was 20 years ago.
The 12 IR-CPS per DDG-1000 class ship was reported back in June. I think that is the number they've landed on.
I ment 4 of the 3 missile launcher pership there boss. Which be 12 missiles per ship, and is a solid amount.

Now if only we had more ships to put them on...

Then again that will be an amusing What IF?

Say all 32 Zumwalts are order and built.

Will we still refit them with the Hypersonic module since the gun be mostly working?
The Zumwalts are way to expensive. The US should use any and all funding to rebuild building capacity. We are going to need the ships to meet future requirements and rebuilding, upgrading and construction of new shipyards needs to be a top priority for the US Navy. #1 in my opinion.
There lines the rub.

The Navy cant shove the money around that way, well it kinda can but...

They dont have anywhere to take it from.

Well several ships are reaching the put of costing more to run then replace, so taking it out maintance is amazing stupid idea...

Next big money item is training and crewing the ships.... No Training Equal ships running into tankers cause they dont know how the ships works, Fitzgerald and McCain, and try not paying the servicemembers...

The rest of the money is bespoken on weapon updates, fuel, restocking, Marines, and other minor things the Navy needs to run.

So any new money needs to come from Congress and....

Not getting into that shitshow...

The Best way is for the navy to jsut out right retire the legacy ships, Ticos and LA subs, and solve the budget from those ships to the Yard while telling them to fix themselves.

Which while epic to see happen just for the reactions alone, one of the reactions is literally everyone of O7 UP getting the boot by Congress.

Funny enough if we kept the 32 Zumwalts we be in Far better position. Cause the Burke 3s are costing more then they would have since we had to pay to REBUILD ALL THE LINES FOR THE BURKES. And since all the Zumwalts lines are now close, we are in the same place for them as well. Hindsight is a right PITA.

This is not help by the fact we are going to start losing more ships then we replace here were quick cause those ships I mention? Are the 22 strong Tico class cruisers, which are older then I am and several are pushing 40 years. The FFGs be usefull but it be a few years before they are close to replacing the Ticos loses. Call it ten years then it be back were we are cause the first Burkes be pushing forty.

Need to start building ALOT of things now. Ships and yards...

Ingells can do 4 hulls at a time, they just need the money to pay for the workers. So two Burkes 3 and two CGX/DD(G)X is well within their ability and go long to even stuff out.

Get the other yards up and running?

We can shift the work to them as we update Ingells. Nicely solve most of the issues reasonably fast...

Well all issue but one.

Money.

They may be speculating. I am guessing as well. I hope they can carry 12 total missiles. I know they US navy often buys a few items in case of damage, malfunction, ETC.
I wonder if there'll be a subsequent weight saving and does that mean they can put the 57mm Bofors autocannons back?
Laser> 57mm Bofors.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,757
Reaction score
1,438
Time Critical targets (TCT) TELs, which are often missed, are the tgt, thus really a Arsenal ships launching many slower missiles like hunting TAcit Rainbow/ Thirsty Saber is the requirement. Lower Altitude to survive S-500 and follow on SAMs (out to 1000miles) rather than high hypers which are going to invite interception.
So basically the USN plan to use Time On Target something using a combo of Hypers, JASSAM, and Tomahawks?

Which be a pain to defend against cause:

The Hypersonic missile coming in from on the high being the obvious target causing the systems to focus on look up allowing the JASSAM to sneak on in along with the Tomahawk which will make detection of the JASSAM even more unlikely. All of this happening at once means at least a few of the weapons will hit. Basically combine arms with with missiles.

And you seem to ignore the other use cases of the Hypersonics, like smacking ships while they are in port or supporting troops by taking out heavily defended targets like artillery or command centers. Being able to hit targets within 30 minutes from 1000 miles aways is too handy not to have.

And while they are sam bait, that is a double edge sword. Say you have a SAM that you are 80 percent sure that the US doesnt know about, do you fire at the hypersonic going in to delete the AO TOC and invite the hoard of Tomahawks waiting or do you wait to ambush the Carrier strikecraft? That is a major exercise that commanders will have to deal with.

Also it needs to be say that the only ships in the US that cant carry a tomahawk are Carriers and Amphilous assualt ships and they have planes that can carry Their own stealthy cruiser missiles so an Arsenal ship is just as a stupid idea as it was 20 years ago.
The 12 IR-CPS per DDG-1000 class ship was reported back in June. I think that is the number they've landed on.
I ment 4 of the 3 missile launcher pership there boss. Which be 12 missiles per ship, and is a solid amount.

Now if only we had more ships to put them on...

Then again that will be an amusing What IF?

Say all 32 Zumwalts are order and built.

Will we still refit them with the Hypersonic module since the gun be mostly working?
The Zumwalts are way to expensive. The US should use any and all funding to rebuild building capacity. We are going to need the ships to meet future requirements and rebuilding, upgrading and construction of new shipyards needs to be a top priority for the US Navy. #1 in my opinion.
There lines the rub.

The Navy cant shove the money around that way, well it kinda can but...

They dont have anywhere to take it from.

Well several ships are reaching the put of costing more to run then replace, so taking it out maintance is amazing stupid idea...
old ships need to go but this leadership doesnot know what to replace them w/ and as you explained the VLS reload situation is a Sh-show...jeepers didnot know it was so bad and hypersonics wellaccelerate this dysfuntion.
Next big money item is training and crewing the ships.... No Training Equal ships running into tankers cause they dont know how the ships works, Fitzgerald and McCain, and try not paying the servicemembers...

The rest of the money is bespoken on weapon updates, fuel, restocking, Marines, and other minor things the Navy needs to run.

So any new money needs to come from Congress and....

Not getting into that shitshow...
Congress needs to provide cash but have confidence the leadeership knows what they are doing....that will never happen as it is obvious Large Surface Combatants need big guns and those are not even discussed, let alone developed, on top of being tarnished even as a concept.
The Best way is for the navy to jsut out right retire the legacy ships, Ticos and LA subs, and solve the budget from those ships to the Yard while telling them to fix themselves.
mass retirement is good idea, but scary
Which while epic to see happen just for the reactions alone, one of the reactions is literally everyone of O7 UP getting the boot by Congress.
everyone of O7 UP getting the boot by Congress..YEP
Funny enough if we kept the 32 Zumwalts we be in Far better position. Cause the Burke 3s are costing more then they would have since we had to pay to REBUILD ALL THE LINES FOR THE BURKES. And since all the Zumwalts lines are now close, we are in the same place for them as well. Hindsight is a right PITA.

This is not help by the fact we are going to start losing more ships then we replace here were quick cause those ships I mention? Are the 22 strong Tico class cruisers, which are older then I am and several are pushing 40 years. The FFGs be usefull but it be a few years before they are close to replacing the Ticos loses. Call it ten years then it be back were we are cause the first Burkes be pushing forty.

Need to start building ALOT of things now. Ships and yards...
YEP
Ingells can do 4 hulls at a time, they just need the money to pay for the workers. So two Burkes 3 and two CGX/DD(G)X is well within their ability and go long to even stuff out.

Get the other yards up and running?

We can shift the work to them as we update Ingells. Nicely solve most of the issues reasonably fast...

Well all issue but one.

Money.
What you mentioned as the VLS reload fiasco needs a redesign for fast reload in at least seastate 2. If one has to go to calm waters and is vastly outnumbered and under periodic fire.. jeepers.. How survivable? Thus the return of large guns w/ rds able to intercept hypersonics hyper cruise and threaten anyone at long range like a porcupine w/ only one shot.
 

Josh_TN

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Sep 4, 2019
Messages
1,201
Reaction score
802
The USN has wanted to retire the Ticos for over a decade to save maintenance and manning costs. Congress won’t let them.
 

JG87

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
40
Reaction score
33
Time Critical targets (TCT) TELs, which are often missed, are the tgt, thus really a Arsenal ships launching many slower missiles like hunting TAcit Rainbow/ Thirsty Saber is the requirement. Lower Altitude to survive S-500 and follow on SAMs (out to 1000miles) rather than high hypers which are going to invite interception.
So basically the USN plan to use Time On Target something using a combo of Hypers, JASSAM, and Tomahawks?

Which be a pain to defend against cause:

The Hypersonic missile coming in from on the high being the obvious target causing the systems to focus on look up allowing the JASSAM to sneak on in along with the Tomahawk which will make detection of the JASSAM even more unlikely. All of this happening at once means at least a few of the weapons will hit. Basically combine arms with with missiles.

And you seem to ignore the other use cases of the Hypersonics, like smacking ships while they are in port or supporting troops by taking out heavily defended targets like artillery or command centers. Being able to hit targets within 30 minutes from 1000 miles aways is too handy not to have.

And while they are sam bait, that is a double edge sword. Say you have a SAM that you are 80 percent sure that the US doesnt know about, do you fire at the hypersonic going in to delete the AO TOC and invite the hoard of Tomahawks waiting or do you wait to ambush the Carrier strikecraft? That is a major exercise that commanders will have to deal with.

Also it needs to be say that the only ships in the US that cant carry a tomahawk are Carriers and Amphilous assualt ships and they have planes that can carry Their own stealthy cruiser missiles so an Arsenal ship is just as a stupid idea as it was 20 years ago.
The 12 IR-CPS per DDG-1000 class ship was reported back in June. I think that is the number they've landed on.
I ment 4 of the 3 missile launcher pership there boss. Which be 12 missiles per ship, and is a solid amount.

Now if only we had more ships to put them on...

Then again that will be an amusing What IF?

Say all 32 Zumwalts are order and built.

Will we still refit them with the Hypersonic module since the gun be mostly working?
The Zumwalts are way to expensive. The US should use any and all funding to rebuild building capacity. We are going to need the ships to meet future requirements and rebuilding, upgrading and construction of new shipyards needs to be a top priority for the US Navy. #1 in my opinion.
There lines the rub.

The Navy cant shove the money around that way, well it kinda can but...

They dont have anywhere to take it from.

Well several ships are reaching the put of costing more to run then replace, so taking it out maintance is amazing stupid idea...

Next big money item is training and crewing the ships.... No Training Equal ships running into tankers cause they dont know how the ships works, Fitzgerald and McCain, and try not paying the servicemembers...

The rest of the money is bespoken on weapon updates, fuel, restocking, Marines, and other minor things the Navy needs to run.

So any new money needs to come from Congress and....

Not getting into that shitshow...

The Best way is for the navy to jsut out right retire the legacy ships, Ticos and LA subs, and solve the budget from those ships to the Yard while telling them to fix themselves.

Which while epic to see happen just for the reactions alone, one of the reactions is literally everyone of O7 UP getting the boot by Congress.

Funny enough if we kept the 32 Zumwalts we be in Far better position. Cause the Burke 3s are costing more then they would have since we had to pay to REBUILD ALL THE LINES FOR THE BURKES. And since all the Zumwalts lines are now close, we are in the same place for them as well. Hindsight is a right PITA.

This is not help by the fact we are going to start losing more ships then we replace here were quick cause those ships I mention? Are the 22 strong Tico class cruisers, which are older then I am and several are pushing 40 years. The FFGs be usefull but it be a few years before they are close to replacing the Ticos loses. Call it ten years then it be back were we are cause the first Burkes be pushing forty.

Need to start building ALOT of things now. Ships and yards...

Ingells can do 4 hulls at a time, they just need the money to pay for the workers. So two Burkes 3 and two CGX/DD(G)X is well within their ability and go long to even stuff out.

Get the other yards up and running?

We can shift the work to them as we update Ingells. Nicely solve most of the issues reasonably fast...

Well all issue but one.

Money.

It is a start, but a small one
 

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
137
Reaction score
121
Bloomberg reporting on Pentagon estimated cost of the Army/Navy hypersonic missiles
Quoting Navy at $21.5 B and Army $7 B (Navy $89.6 M each / Army $106 M each) Total $28.5 B for 218 operational missiles if my calcs correct, including development ~$130 million per missile
Navy $10.1 B development, $11 B production +$400M military construction, Army $4.4 B development, $2.5 B production.
Navy 240 missiles - 40 development, 200 operational, Army 66 missiles - 48 development, 18 operational.
Timeline
Navy 40 development models thru 2025, 4 funded, 7 this year, 11 in 2023, 10 in 2024, 8 in 2025
Production of operational missiles 4 in 2025, 14 2026, 16 in 2027 and 2028 and continues to 2040, initially for Zumwalts in 2025 and Virginia subs from 2028
Army 48 development, 12 in 2023, 14 in 2024 and only 18 operational missiles budgeted for 2025 and 2026
The cost drivers for these very, very expensive missiles appear to be the new tech materials and processing required for the thermal protection needed for the glide body flying at very high Mach numbers in the high atmosphere.
Don't know the weight of the conventional warheads, assume 2,000 lbs?, range approx 1,700 miles, is the $28.5 B cost out of all proportion for the limited numbers of 218 operational missiles?, would not much higher numbers of ballistic missiles be a better buy?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-12/hypersonic-sticker-shock-u-s-weapons-may-run-106-million-each
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
1,022
Adding fixed cost, infrastructure and MilCon cost and ship conversion will always seem the unit cost (simply dividing it by the number of rounds produced) seem large. Large diameter ballistic missiles would be no different as there is no system that is in production and deployed that would allow them to skip the infra and development cost all-together. The thing for the DOD and Congress to consider, assuming they are interested in competing in this space for a few decades and not just 2-3 years, is the recurring cost of the AUR, and follow on capability. Imagine if China stopped its entire DF-XX program after a couple of hundred examples of the very first missile. If the DOD or Congress value intermediate range capability from land or sea, then there will be a cost of entry in terms of development, creating the supply chain and scaling production. The demand signal for the last 15 years has been on direct attack munitions, and in producing stuff that was originally developed in the 80s and 90s (if not earlier) so naturally, the pivot to weapons that we don't have a large production base for will incur heavy one time fixed cost.

Its not worth it if all they want is 200 systems over 20 years. It is well worth it if they want to use that as a springboard towards additional capability within this type of system (intermediate range, boost glide). For example, adding a WDL and seeker to the LRHW won't require re-doing the entire R&D program. Similarly, swapping out the C-HGB for a next generation system won't require a complete weapon re-design. One time costs are worth it if one is interested in iterating on a baseline capability. Otherwise you end up with a B-2 like situation where you go through all the expensive invention and research only to buy 21.

If one does some back of the envelope math, the URF estimates are going to be in the $30-35 million range (about the same cost for the latest SM-3 the Navy is getting via MDA) for the AUR at the fairly low production rates. What does an Air Defense battery go for these days? We have cheaper AL-hypersonic capability that will exist in larger numbers. Even the LR production ARRW estimates are 1/3 or less than the LRHW. And HACM could be 1/2 or less relative to ARRW. So as part of a mix, there are options for scale. That said, the LRHW/IRCPS is the only product at this range and going for a nearly 3,000 km hypersonic system they would have known that it wouldn't be as cheap as an AL 900 km system or something even shorter ranged than that. There is likely need for both types in varying quantity.
 
Last edited:

Cordy

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Nov 5, 2019
Messages
137
Reaction score
121
Thx for reply, a few thoughts the ship and submarine conversion costs will be funded from the Ship and Conversion Navy budget and not that of the CPS hypersonic missile weapons budget, if Congress approves the three Zumwalts to be converted to fire 12 each? of the CPS hypersonic missiles by ripping out their AGS 155mm guns and magazines and replacing them with a variant of the VPM it will be funded from the SCN budget, similarly the current contract for 10 Virginia Block Vs with the 84' mid hull plug for its VPM to launch the CPS with its four VLS cells at an approx cost of ~$500 million over and above Virginia Block IV's cost are being funded by the SCN budget.

Leaves the question on what metric do you justify spending ~$130 million per missile and that excludes the additional conversion cost of the $5 billion for the 10 Virginia Block Vs and the unknown costs of converting the Zumwalts, another $1 billion?. As far as know no Navy Analysis of Alternatives was carried out as is the requirement of US military acquisition policy where three feasible alternatives are analyzed?
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
3,757
Reaction score
1,438

Current solid fuel Hypers like PGS are programed obsolesence.
When solid boosted-scram jets are mature enough to meet this canceled SM form factored missile project spec or near spec, then hypersonics should be invested in by the USN. Advances in both liquid and solid energetics needs to be waited on.

What is so bad about a fold out fixed wing SM? A family of multi-purpose solid boosted-scram jet SM form factored missiles would be benefit for all svcs as the USArmy is now adopting an SM version, and a version could be carried by at least a B-52.

According to DARPA, the ArcLight program was to develop a high-tech missile based on the booster stack of the current RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 and equipped with a Hypersonic glide vehicle capable of carrying a 100-200 lb (45-90 kg) warhead.[2]

The missile would replace the aging Tomahawk (missile) and could be fired out of the standard vertical launchers available on many surface ships.[1] Additionally, the ArcLight missile would be capable of launch from air and submarine assets capable of carrying the BGM-109.[2]

In DARPA's FY 2012 budget, the ArcLight missile program was terminated.[4] The reason was that more development work was needed and they could not yet reach a high enough lift-to-drag ratio system from a non-fixed-wing vehicle. 2011 was spent reassessing technology needs, and no further funding was requested after that. DARPA commented that ArcLight was not part of Prompt Global Strike and was meant as a theater-based system to work with other systems like the Tomahawk cruise missile.[5]

PSG fetishism had likely set in and killed Arclight..
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
1,022
Thx for reply, a few thoughts..

I believe the Navy has allocated those costs for the Zumwalt under its CPS lines.

Why the $130 Million per missile? Why not make that $200+ by adding all past hypersonic RDT&E activity and rolling it into this program? You can make any number look bad. Do we add the cost of the GPS constellation when factoring in PGM AUR cost? If not, why not? The LRHW and IR-CPS are $30-35 MM AUR's. Any intermediate ranged system would have come with a high initial fixed cost. This was because we don't have this capability, and have never signaled to industry that we want this capability until this last decade. Unlike JDAM's, or the decades old cruise missiles there aren't factories already built that could produce these. The IP and knowhow for the glider resided with Sandia and it has taken some enormous hand-holding to get one supplier capable of producing these glide bodies. Well that initial investment also positions the same industrial partner to produce more capable future gliders so the benefits of that investment extend beyond just this program.

If you haven't produced something for decades, and now all of a sudden want this capability then that will come with a high one time fixed cost. If you want it bad enough and are invested in the capability for decades, you ought to really be focusing on the recurring cost component because that is what you'll be spending as you build missiles, buy them, field them, and iterate and produce more capable designs. The Army and Navy won't need a completely new industrial base for the Increment I of the weapon, or Increment II or if they decide to put a more capable glider on it. So in reality, once the upfront cost for hypersonics (this applies to all systems and not just the Army/Navy IR-CPS/LRHW) you are looking at a $30-$35 MM LRHW, A $10 Million- $12 MM ARRW, and likely a $5-6 Million HAWC. Not very different from the spread on the BMD systems that we also buy in fairly small quantities (SM-3IIA, THAAD, and MSE). You want a lower unit cost then they could always buy more or extend the program out to 2-3 decades which would make your numbers look better. But since the demand is for near term (just 200 missiles) no matter what system they decided to field, unless it happened to be an existing Intermediate Ranged conventional missile that could meet the prompt strike requirement (and had an existing production base) the unit cost including development, construction, and initial industrial base creation cost would have been high. I suspect they aren't thinking of just buying 200 missiles and calling it a day but would leverage the industrial investment for a lot more capability.

As far as know no Navy Analysis of Alternatives was carried out as is the requirement of US military acquisition policy where three feasible alternatives are analyzed?

LRHW/IR-CPS and particularly the latter came out of a Congressional requirement to field prompt strike capability by a certain date. Hypresonic Glide bodies were chosen for their increased survivability. The Navy missed the deadline that Congress gave it and is about 3 years behind. What alternatives would there be when the requirement is prompt strike, and required fielding of a survivable intermediate ranged prompt strike capability by 2022? They literally took the most mature glider the nation had, and funded the development of a two stage missile around it. None of the fancy data-link or seeker tech was included in the baseline design to avoid slowing the effort down (that's coming down the road in Increment 1).
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top