Not sure if posted already.
How so?The separation of ballistic and hypersonic boost glide weapons in the US arsenal I think is more due to political considerations rather than effectiveness.
• Hypersonic missiles would probably not be more survivable than ballistic missiles with maneuverable warheads in a conflict, unless the ballistic missiles encountered highly effective long-range defenses.
sounds like a slight IMHO. Hopefully a rethink of hypers which is way overdue.• Hypersonic missiles could cost one-third more to procure and field than ballistic missiles of the same range with maneuverable warheads.
How so?The separation of ballistic and hypersonic boost glide weapons in the US arsenal I think is more due to political considerations rather than effectiveness.
A nuclear warhead can fit in a 155mm shell and smaller (Davy Crockett), so I can't see how it wouldn't fit in these boost-glide warheads unless they'll be smaller than 20kg.
I think the reasoning is garbage TBH and nobody else is following it, so why impede oneself with rules that were never set?Physically I could see it in the SWERVE glider but I’m not sure if all of the components of a physics package can survive the thermal environment. The TBG glider renderings just don’t look big enough in diameter to me, though we’re not going to ever see its real shape.
Regardless, US policy seems to be ballistic RV = nuke, hypersonic glider = conventional, whether it an explicitly articulated position or not. There were numerous proposals for conventional ICBM RVs that always ended up hitting a wall of escalation risk. China’s MRBM/IRBM force never had such constraints, though AFAIK their ICBMs still do. Russia seems to have gone in the opposite direction as its Avangarde system is explicitly strategic, though it’s TBMs are potentially dual use.
I'm not sure that's true anymore TBH, as regards ABM defences. And the diameter of the AGM-183 is 25.9in (658mm), which is wider than a Tomahawk, and the warhead section is 1.7m long.Given the diameter of ARRW I’d be surprised if the glider was ~300kg. As for nuclear weapons, I don’t see any reason to incorporate them into hypersonics at this time seeing as how no one has a particularly useful ABM capability anyway.
Raytheon Technologies and Northrop Grumman Team Down-Selected for US Army’s Next-Generation Precision Strike Missile
TUCSON, Ariz. – March 27, 2023 – The U.S. Army selected Raytheon Technologies to advance its design for the Long Range Maneuverable Fires program, intended to become Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) Increment 4. Working collaboratively with Northrop...news.northropgrumman.com
“That is primarily a propulsion problem,” he said. The PrSM increments, along with most missiles, use rocket propulsion. In rocket systems, much of the weight is the oxygen needed for the fuel to burn.
sure would seem these issues should have been brought up earlier in development likely even before test firing. the developer wanted to sell something fast rather than spend the time for proper RDTE.
sure would seem these issues should have been brought up earlier in development likely even before test firing. the developer wanted to sell something fast rather than spend the time for proper RDTE.
I think the reason why the program got broken out this way is that the INF Treaty originally limited the range to 500km, but subsequently the US pulled out. This created/allowed for intermediate ranges to be considered by the Army after the program had already been started.
In service | 2006–present[1] |
---|
sure would seem these issues should have been brought up earlier in development likely even before test firing. the developer wanted to sell something fast rather than spend the time for proper RDTE.
I think the reason why the program got broken out this way is that the INF Treaty originally limited the range to 500km, but subsequently the US pulled out. This created/allowed for intermediate ranges to be considered by the Army after the program had already been started.9K720 Iskander - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
In service 2006–present[1]
sure would seem these issues should have been brought up earlier in development likely even before test firing. the developer wanted to sell something fast rather than spend the time for proper RDTE.
Interesting. I wonder if it actually looks like that. It could explain why they didn't want the diversion of LRASM-B.View attachment 696536Lockheed Martin Developing Long Range Maneuverable Fires Missile for U.S. Army
Grand Prairie, Texas, March 27, 2023 – The U.S. Army’s Aviation and Missile Center has selected Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT) to develop an advanced propulsion Long Range Maneuverable Fires...news.lockheedmartin.com
In March 2016, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Raytheon announced they would offer a missile to meet the U.S. Army's Long Range Precision Fires (LRPF) requirement to replace the ATACMS.
sure would seem these issues should have been brought up earlier in development likely even before test firing. the developer wanted to sell something fast rather than spend the time for proper RDTE.
PrSM had a range requirement of 499 km since this was what the Army could get cleared given INF and the type of weapon being proposed. Subsequently, we exited INF and since then the range of the baseline system has been stated as 500+km with some putting it at 550 km when it enters service. Future increment of this capability addresses longer, up to 2x the range, capability. Baseline capability stands on its own merit and will be very useful when it enters service this Fall. The Army has an objective inventory requirement of about 4,000 increment 1 missiles. 2X increase in range brings in additional capability to the MDTF in the 2030s especially when combined with other LRPF effects being envisioned for it.
The M version (9M723) is a modified version of the original Iskander, it is a quasi-ballistic missile. The K version is the cruise missile. There are two versions of the K, the current 9M728 and the proposed 9M729.Iskander K hypothetically also is limited to 500km and I believe actually is pretty much limited to that range, although the 'M' version is a cruise missile that appears to have a range more along the lines of BGM-109.
At this point the only way forward for regional deterrence and stability is to create “France & UK East” meaning independent nuclear arsenals in Japan and S. Korea and while on the subject a few dozens SLCM-Ns in those new Aussie SSNs.They could repurpose their M-V space launcher as an ICBM or leave the first stage off and use it as an MRBM.
and I believe they were building a reprocessing facility to purity and use it (ostensibly for civilian use).
I've no doubt they have a simple single stage fission design ready to implement.
That should be quite straight and likely would a hollow-boosted design, the question is could they design and build a two-stage TN warhead?
The US partnered with France early in their nuke development and still work closely with the UK - in fact due to congressional budgetary restrictions on new warhead R&D in the US (although this might have been overturned recently) the UK nuke labs host a lot of “partnerships” with LLNL & LANL. We could do the same with our Eastern allies.That should be quite straight and likely would a hollow-boosted design, the question is could they design and build a two-stage TN warhead?
I don't know, but I suspect if they ever went nuclear the goal would be to do it as soon as possible to prevent anyone from stopping the process. Were that the case, making more complex warhead types wouldn't be a consideration. Anything simple that went bang, delivered with sufficient accuracy, speed, and range, would fulfill the deterrent role.
The US partnered with France early in their nuke development and still work closely with the UK - in fact due to congressional budgetary restrictions on new warhead R&D in the US (although this might have been overturned recently) the UK nuke labs host a lot of “partnerships” with LLNL & LANL. We could do the same with our Eastern allies.
The US partnered with France early in their nuke development and still work closely with the UK - in fact due to congressional budgetary restrictions on new warhead R&D in the US (although this might have been overturned recently) the UK nuke labs host a lot of “partnerships” with LLNL & LANL. We could do the same with our Eastern allies.
Not without violating our obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
The US partnered with France early in their nuke development and still work closely with the UK - in fact due to congressional budgetary restrictions on new warhead R&D in the US (although this might have been overturned recently) the UK nuke labs host a lot of “partnerships” with LLNL & LANL. We could do the same with our Eastern allies.
Not without violating our obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Since both France and the UK were already publicly declared nuclear-powers when the treaty was implemented wouldn't they be able to exchange nuclear-weapons design information with the US and vice-versa?