US Hypersonics - Prompt Global Strike Capability

[bobbymike]

Politics or money?

Politics.

It seems. politically, since the 60's the US has unilaterally stopped itself from achieving significant military superiority in the realm of strategic weapon (including the RV accuracy/nuke warheads) and strategic space systems.

 

[sferrin]

Politics or money?

Politics.

It seems. politically, since the 60's the US has unilaterally stopped itself from achieving significant military superiority in the realm of strategic weapon (including the RV accuracy/nuke warheads) and strategic space systems.

And I really don't understand that. What's to be gained by allowing your most potent weapons, and the ability to make them, crumble to dust?

 

[quellish]

It seems. politically, since the 60's the US has unilaterally stopped itself from achieving significant military superiority in the realm of strategic weapon (including the RV accuracy/nuke warheads) and strategic space systems.

Not at all. The critical enablers for Conventional Trident were the RV accuracy improvements flight tested as the Life Extension Testbed program and others. During the 70s and 80s there were several programs that dramatically increased reentry vehicle capability - SWERVE/LORRAINE alone demonstrated high accuracy and communication through plasma that is critical for guidance, terminal homing, and range safety for subsequent programs. The AHW itself is a direct descendant of SWERVE. There have been a number of other flight test experiments that directly resulted in increased capability for currently operational delivery systems.

 

[bobbymike]

It seems. politically, since the 60's the US has unilaterally stopped itself from achieving significant military superiority in the realm of strategic weapon (including the RV accuracy/nuke warheads) and strategic space systems.

Not at all. The critical enablers for Conventional Trident were the RV accuracy improvements flight tested as the Life Extension Testbed program and others. During the 70s and 80s there were several programs that dramatically increased reentry vehicle capability - SWERVE/LORRAINE alone demonstrated high accuracy and communication through plasma that is critical for guidance, terminal homing, and range safety for subsequent programs. The AHW itself is a direct descendant of SWERVE. There have been a number of other flight test experiments that directly resulted in increased capability for currently operational delivery systems.

This is only my opnion mind you.

Dynasoar, Orion, limiting Minuteman numbers to 1000, Skybolt, ASALM, XB-70, not building the WS-120A AICBM, limiting MX, space based laser systems. This site lists dozens and dozens of projects that were never deployed and most seem not to have been due to technical issues but political (and political could also mean cost I guess translated as 'political will')

In the book Politics and Force Levels (the title gives it away) McNamara was spooked by the Cuban Missile Crisis and thought the Russians tried to put missiles in Cuba because they were 'forced' to try something crazy to level the strategic weapons playing field so to speak. He then basically said the US will not pursue strategic superiority and proposed letting the USSR 'catch up' to the US as that would create more stability between the superpowers.

 

[sferrin]

It seems. politically, since the 60's the US has unilaterally stopped itself from achieving significant military superiority in the realm of strategic weapon (including the RV accuracy/nuke warheads) and strategic space systems.

Not at all. The critical enablers for Conventional Trident were the RV accuracy improvements flight tested as the Life Extension Testbed program and others. During the 70s and 80s there were several programs that dramatically increased reentry vehicle capability - SWERVE/LORRAINE alone demonstrated high accuracy and communication through plasma that is critical for guidance, terminal homing, and range safety for subsequent programs. The AHW itself is a direct descendant of SWERVE. There have been a number of other flight test experiments that directly resulted in increased capability for currently operational delivery systems.

This is only my opnion mind you.

Dynasoar, Orion, limiting Minuteman numbers to 1000, Skybolt, ASALM, XB-70, not building the WS-120A AICBM, limiting MX, space based laser systems. This site lists dozens and dozens of projects that were never deployed and most seem not to have been due to technical issues but political (and political could also mean cost I guess translated as 'political will')

In the book Politics and Force Levels (the title gives it away) McNamara was spooked by the Cuban Missile Crisis and thought the Russians tried to put missiles in Cuba because they were 'forced' to try something crazy to level the strategic weapons playing field so to speak. He then basically said the US will not pursue strategic superiority and proposed letting the USSR 'catch up' to the US as that would create more stability between the superpowers.

IMO cancelling Midgetman was one of the dumbest things we've ever done when it comes to strategic weapon systems.

 

[RyanC]

Let's not get into the insane destruction of our strategic defenses from the 1960s onwards.

 

[sferrin]

Let's not get into the insane destruction of our strategic defenses from the 1960s onwards.

Yep. Bomarc, Nike Hercules, F-106, F-101, F-102, Safguard. . .

 

[antigravite]

An experimental "Advanced Hypersonic Weapon" for PGS failed seconds after lift-off, yesterday.

source: http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=16903 and full release below

A.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Release No: NR-444-14
August 25, 2014
Advanced Hypersonic Weapon Test Conducted
Shortly after 4 a.m. EDT, the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command, as part of the Defense Department's Conventional Prompt Global Strike technology development program, conducted a flight test of the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon from the Kodiak Launch Complex in Alaska.
Due to an anomaly, the test was terminated near the launch pad shortly after lift-off to ensure public safety. There were no injuries to any personnel.
Program officials are conducting an extensive investigation to determine the cause of the flight anomaly.
News media point of contact is Ms. Maureen Schumann, Office of the Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs, at 703-697-4162, Maureen.A.Schumann.civ@mail.mil.

 

[antigravite]

More on AHW (2014):

Miltec Corp., Huntsville, Alabama, was awarded a $44,000,000 cost-plus-fixed-fee contract with options for labor, material, travel for research and development for the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon - Technology Demonstration for Space and Missile Defense Command, with an estimated completion date of June 5, 2019. Work will be performed in Huntsville, Alabama. Fiscal 2013 research, development, testing and evaluation funds in the amount of $10,786,000 were obligated at the time of the award. Bids were solicited via the Internet with one received. Army Space and Missile Defense Command is the contracting activity (W9113M-14-C-0015).

source: No: CR-108-1 / June 09, 2014 / ARMY CONTRACTS
http://www.defense.gov/contracts/contract.aspx?contractid=5302

 

[bobbymike]

Shaffer: DOD Eying Third Advanced Hypersonic Weapon Test After Failure


Posted: Sep. 03, 2014

The Pentagon is eying a third test of its Advanced Hypersonic Weapon after the second test last month was terminated shortly after liftoff, the Defense Department's acting research and engineering chief said in a brief interview. Speaking to Inside the Pentagon Sept. 3, Al Shaffer, the principal deputy assistant secretary of defense for research and engineering, said the Aug. 25 test was "really unfortunate" because it wasn't a failure of the actual hypersonic system -- it was a failure of the rocket. "I think the plan is to try to get another one available and launch again," Shaffer said. "And we'll see where it goes." He said the department has not sorted out a time frame for this potential third test yet. He also noted that the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, or AHW, is only one "flavor" of hypersonics, and that the scramjet air-breathing variety is "still going along very well."

The Army's AHW is a sub-program of Conventional Prompt Global Strike that is designed to "test and evaluate alternative booster and delivery vehicle options and will assess the feasibility of producing an affordable alternate solution to fill the CPGS capability gap," according to budget justification materials released in March. The AHW had its first successful flight test in November 2011, when it was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii and traveled 2,400 miles to Kwajalein Atoll. This second test was supposed to travel 3,500 miles from the Kodiak Launch Complex in Alaska to Kwajalein Atoll, but a booster rocket experienced an anomaly after liftoff and caused authorities to terminate the flight for safety reasons (DefenseAlert, Aug. 25). James Acton, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment, told InsideDefense.com on Aug. 25 that the test termination "appears to say more about the booster than anything about the glider."

The results of the second test were supposed to help drive DOD's plans for its multimillion-dollar CPGS program. When asked what the impact of this test will have on the future of the program, Shaffer said the bigger issue is related to the Budget Control Act which instituted sequestration. "If we're at BCA we have a problem," Shaffer said. "If we're not at Budget Control Act, we have a list of things that will fall in above the Budget Control Act, and that may or may not be there." Although the test failure cannot be blamed on the AHW itself, the whole program faces a setback, said aerospace consultant Leon McKinney, who tracks hypersonics programs (ITP, Aug. 28). McKinney told ITP it could take at least a year before the Pentagon is ready to test the system again, noting that diagnosing and correcting the problem will take time. "No flight means no data, which means AHW advocates will lose momentum to competing concepts," he said last week. -- Jordana Mishory

 

[sferrin]

""I think the plan is to try to get another one available and launch again," Shaffer said. "And we'll see where it goes.""

Wow, that's some serious determination there. Nothing will stop us.

 

[Moose]

Hard to make firm commitments when the budget is in the state it's in.

 

[Grey Havoc]

I think they have been taking full advantage of the recent gains by pro-Marijuana advocates.

 

[seruriermarshal]

The argument for a hypersonic missile testing ban in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

For this reason, it is important for the United States—the world leader in hypersonic missile development—to pursue an international hypersonic missile test ban, which could be easily verified and, once put in place, would end an arms race that already involves the United States, China, Russia, and India, with France, the United Kingdom and probably other countries lurking in the wings.

He just a idiot

 

[bobbymike]

The argument for a hypersonic missile testing ban in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

For this reason, it is important for the United States—the world leader in hypersonic missile development—to pursue an international hypersonic missile test ban, which could be easily verified and, once put in place, would end an arms race that already involves the United States, China, Russia, and India, with France, the United Kingdom and probably other countries lurking in the wings.

He just a idiot

Seeing that he openly describes himself as a member of the International Committee of Robot Arms Control would we expect anything less idiotic?

 

[seruriermarshal]

Seeing that he openly describes himself as a member of the International Committee of Robot Arms Control would we expect anything less idiotic?

come on , nobody will stop UAV , and ICRAC = nothing

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZRQS0TsdGw

 

[bobbymike]

On page three of the report it talks about "a tactical range air launched (compatible with possible sea launched) boost glide system"

Would this mean a type of solid rocket back end that boosts the glide vehicle to hypersonic speeds, think AHW for the air?

In the X-51 thread if I recall I posted a story from a general from AFRL saying they could have very high speed missiles now but not air breathing?

 

[sferrin]

On page three of the report it talks about "a tactical range air launched (compatible with possible sea launched) boost glide system"

Would this mean a type of solid rocket back end that boosts the glide vehicle to hypersonic speeds, think AHW for the air?

In the X-51 thread if I recall I posted a story from a general from AFRL saying they could have very high speed missiles now but not air breathing?

Consider that the ATACMs booster was able to get the X-51 up to Mach 4.8. Now take that booster and put an optimized supersonic/hypersonic glider up front. You have a total of 5000lbs to work with (the F-15, F-22, and F-35 all have 5000lb rated hardpoints). Maybe you stretch the ATACMs booster for a bit more oomph. I'm surprised they haven't already been looking at this kind of thing. I think they're so enamoured with acquiring the Holy Grail (hypersonic air breather) that they can't see possible, acceptable solutions at hand. India doesn't seem to have that problem. Imagine how many of these you could pack into an SSGN or Virginia Common Launcher:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaurya_(missile)

Better still, imagine using that for your booster for a sea-launched boost glider.

 

[GeorgeA]

We've been able to do hypersonic air-launched strike since the 1960s (e.g., Skybolt), but the air-breathing obsession keeps impeding our thinking. If there's 5000 lb pylon limit, and assuming that's a bring-back limit as well, that yields 2x SRAM launch weight to work with. Modern warhead design and more energetic propellants, and realistic range/speed trade-offs, should allow us to conjure up a fairly potent weapon that doesn't depend on immature airbreathing technologies to work (ducted rockets and the like notwithstanding).

 

[bobbymike]

On page three of the report it talks about "a tactical range air launched (compatible with possible sea launched) boost glide system"

Would this mean a type of solid rocket back end that boosts the glide vehicle to hypersonic speeds, think AHW for the air?

In the X-51 thread if I recall I posted a story from a general from AFRL saying they could have very high speed missiles now but not air breathing?

Consider that the ATACMs booster was able to get the X-51 up to Mach 4.8. Now take that booster and put an optimized supersonic/hypersonic glider up front. You have a total of 5000lbs to work with (the F-15, F-22, and F-35 all have 5000lb rated hardpoints). Maybe you stretch the ATACMs booster for a bit more oomph. I'm surprised they haven't already been looking at this kind of thing. I think they're so enamoured with acquiring the Holy Grail (hypersonic air breather) that they can't see possible, acceptable solutions at hand. India doesn't seem to have that problem. Imagine how many of these you could pack into an SSGN or Virginia Common Launcher:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaurya_(missile)

Better still, imagine using that for your booster for a sea-launched boost glider.

I once half jokingly posted, I believe on this PGS thread, "Why don't they just strap a guided warhead on a 'Super Roadrunner'?

 

[sferrin]

On page three of the report it talks about "a tactical range air launched (compatible with possible sea launched) boost glide system"

Would this mean a type of solid rocket back end that boosts the glide vehicle to hypersonic speeds, think AHW for the air?

In the X-51 thread if I recall I posted a story from a general from AFRL saying they could have very high speed missiles now but not air breathing?

Consider that the ATACMs booster was able to get the X-51 up to Mach 4.8. Now take that booster and put an optimized supersonic/hypersonic glider up front. You have a total of 5000lbs to work with (the F-15, F-22, and F-35 all have 5000lb rated hardpoints). Maybe you stretch the ATACMs booster for a bit more oomph. I'm surprised they haven't already been looking at this kind of thing. I think they're so enamoured with acquiring the Holy Grail (hypersonic air breather) that they can't see possible, acceptable solutions at hand. India doesn't seem to have that problem. Imagine how many of these you could pack into an SSGN or Virginia Common Launcher:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaurya_(missile)

Better still, imagine using that for your booster for a sea-launched boost glider.

I once half jokingly posted, I believe on this PGS thread, "Why don't they just strap a guided warhead on a 'Super Roadrunner'?

No kidding! I half think the only reason they haven't made it into a missile of some sort is because it'll explode if you look at it cross-eyed. ;D

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140922/DEFFEAT05/309220012/Editorial-Preparing-Future?odyssey=mod|nextstory

From the article;

New weapons, including a long-range strike missile, are in the pipeline to expand the Air Force’s reach.

Is this something new? Story written taking information from speeches, interviews, etc. at the recent Air Force Association Air & Space Conference.

 

[ISP]

DARPA-BAA-14-24 Tactical Boost Glide Contract Award


Solicitation Number: DARPA-BAA-14-24
Notice Type: Award
Contract Award Date: September 22, 2014
Contract Award Number: HR0011-14-C-0124
Contract Award Dollar Amount: Base Contract Value: $4,906,395, Option Value if Exercised: $20,489,714
Contractor Awarded Name: Raytheon Company

That might explain a large part of hypersonic related job positions recently offered by Raytheon.

DARPA-BAA-14-24 Tactical Boost Glide
Solicitation Number: DARPA-BAA-14-24
Notice Type: Award
Notice Contract Award Date: September 24, 2014
Contract Award Dollar Amount: $24,390,645
Contractor Awarded Name: Lockheed Martin Corporation

It seems that LM has got its share of the cake, too.

 

[bobbymike]

More details on contract awards:

DARPA Selects Raytheon, Lockheed For Boost-Glide Hypersonics Program

Posted: Sep. 25, 2014

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is moving ahead with the design and demonstration of a boost-glide hypersonic strike weapon system after selecting Raytheon and Lockheed Martin as the lead industry partners for the Tactical Boost Glide program. In two notices on the Federal Business Opportunities website this week, DARPA disclosed that Raytheon and Lockheed Martin have received contracts worth up to $20 million and $24 million respectively for the initial phase of the TBG program. The program is jointly funded by the Air Force, with both organizations adding $150 million each. The companies have extensive experience within the hypersonics domain. For instance, Lockheed has been working with DARPA on the Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 concept and both companies are among the participants in the Air Force's High Speed Strike Weapon program.

According to the TBG broad agency announcement, released March 25, the program aims to develop and demonstrate technologies that would enable air-launched, tactical-range hypersonic boost-glide systems. The program culminates in a flight demonstration, which Air Force officials expect to occur sometime over the next five years. "The program will address the system and technology issues required to enable development of a hypersonic boost-glide system considering: vehicle concepts possessing the required aerodynamic and aerothermal performance; controllability and robustness for a wide operational envelope; the system attributes and subsystems required to be effective in relevant operational environments; and approaches to reducing cost and improving affordability for both the demonstration system and future operational systems," the BAA states.

The TBG program is one of two hypersonic efforts being jointly pursued by the Air Force and DAPRA. The second is the High Speed Air-breathing Weapon Concept (HAWC) that aims to design and demonstrate a hypersonic cruise missile that would be powered by a scramjet engine. That effort would follow on from the successful X-51A WaveRider demonstration in 2013. Speaking to reporters at the annual Air Force Association conference in National Harbor, MD, last week, the head of the Air Force Research Laboratory said both programs present their own technical challenges: The air vehicle for the TBG concept is a warhead design that separates from a booster rocket and glides to hypersonic speeds, up to Mach 10 or greater, whereas the scramjet-powered system would be slightly slower but more complex to build and operate.

Maj. Gen. Thomas Masiello said hypersonics research continues to be an area of focus and investment for AFRL because of the technology's operational utility and high level of maturation. "It's about altitude and it's about speed," Masiello said Sept. 16. "It's just plain physics in terms of missiles [not] being able to intercept a cruise missile going at Mach 5-plus up at 50,000 to 60,000 feet. That gives you the survivability aspect of it." The general said that type of weapon system would be survivable, and could strike targets in contested or anti-access, area-denial (A2/AD) environments, which is a "huge attribute."

Seeker challenge

In terms of the way forward on developing and fielding a tactical hypersonic weapon system, Masiello believes the biggest technical challenge right now is the high-speed seeker technology. That was also the view of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, which was tasked this year with exploring the technology readiness of hypersonic vehicles. In an abstract published in July, the board recommended the Air Force further develop high-speed seeker technology. Seeker systems fitted to a hypersonic weapon must perform through extreme temperatures while precisely guiding the air vehicle at speeds greater than five times the speed of sound. "In terms of transitioning hypersonic technology to the field, it would be a cruise-missile-type weapon," Masiello said. "The biggest technical challenge on either Tactical Boost Glide or HAWC is the seeker. If you're going to go after mobile targets you need a seeker."

The general said the X-51A program that concluded in 2013 demonstrated air vehicle and propulsion system integration, but the demonstration was not designed to push the envelope of seeker technology. "We did some basic guidance and control -- GPS guided -- and that worked fine," Masiello said. "If it's going to hit a point target, the technology is basically there, and we already know the explosives and the fuzing, based on other programs that we've done, that that's at a decent level of maturity."

AFRL has already begun exploring advanced seeker technology and the munitions directorate at Eglin Air Force Base, FL, recently reached out to industry for information through a July 23 broad agency announcement. The BAA called for industry partners to "study, model and assess" high-speed seeker subsystems that would be capable of being integrated on a precision-guided hypersonic weapon. Responses were due Sept. 8. -- James Drew

 

[bobbymike]

Precision Strike Conference October 21-23, 2014;

http://www.precisionstrike.org/Events/5PST/PDFs/5pst-PSTS-14-Agenda-7-28.pdf


One session is - POTENTIAL OF MULTIPHASE BLAST WEAPONS TO ENHANCE NEAR LETHALITY IN PRECISION STRIKE

Any info on multiphase blast weapons and their uses?

 

[ISP]

DARPA-BAA-14-24 Tactical Boost Glide
Solicitation Number: DARPA-BAA-14-24
Notice Type: Award
Notice Contract Award Date: September 24, 2014
Contract Award Dollar Amount: $24,390,645
Contractor Awarded Name: Lockheed Martin Corporation

It seems that LM has got its share of the cake, too.

Though it would seem DARPA FUBRARED the award amount and a subsequent post revised it to ~$4.9M similar to the Raytheon award.

Right. The option might contain the actual flight demonstration, and I am guessing there won't be enough money to fly test both LM and Raytheon's vehicule concepts.

 

[sferrin]

Not to sound the pessimist but that amount is so small it's almost token. I predict, if either of them actually make it off the ground, they'll get cancelled the first time something goes wrong. It totally blows my mind that they seriously contemplated not doing the 4th X-51 flight. I mean damn, you just want to start grabbing people and slapping them the level of gutless stupidity that demonstrates. We'd have missed a "perfect" flight had we not gone forward with it. IMO if we accomplish anything at all with this bunch it will be by accident. /rant.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2014/October%202014/Speed-Kills-.aspx

I like the thinking around larger magazines to 'kill more enemy' from each platform but I really think the US military is missing out on exploiting very high speed solid propellant missiles that could be readily developed on a much quicker timeframe (think conventional SRAM II or even the larger Skybolt or 1/2 sized Skybolt or air launched ATACMS without the X-51 front end of course) than air breathing hypersonics, even ASALM would work we did that decades ago.

 

[sferrin]

even ASALM would work we did that decades ago.

I'm convinced the reason they killed LRASM-B as "too risky" is because they forgot how to "make it go". I also imagine it might have been a tad embarrasing if a 35 year old design smoked their new complex-requires-a-B-52-and-giant-booster X-51. Gotta save those egos you know.

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/chinas-deadly-missile-arsenal-growing-what-should-america-do-11406

IMHO, abrogate the INF Treaty for conventional missiles and build hundreds of AHW's or ATK's proposed Intermediate Range Global Strike Missile placing them on converted heli-carriers using the acres of flight deck to house dozens and dozens of silos.

 

[sferrin]

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/chinas-deadly-missile-arsenal-growing-what-should-america-do-11406

IMHO, abrogate the INF Treaty for conventional missiles and build hundreds of AHW's or ATK's proposed Intermediate Range Global Strike Missile placing them on converted heli-carriers using the acres of flight deck to house dozens and dozens of silos.

I'd build a family of missiles using the same guidance system and avionics. I'd make the smallest with the SM-3 Block IIA stack in mind (*cough* ArcLight), one for the Mk57 VLS, one for the Virginia Payload Module (that uses the full length of the tube and maybe 3-5 per cell. Make them air and surface launchable too so the USAF and US Army can use them. Make it clear that the project is a FAMILY so you don't end up with Boeing building one, Lockheed one or two, and Raytheon another. That way would be so expensive as to not even bother. If it has to be split have one company do the guidance and avionics, another the motors, and the last integration and warhead. (Or whatever split makes most sense to keep the cost down.) Avoid things like blowing the budget to get 3 more ISP or trying to build them out of unobtainium. Use construction methods that lend themselves to automated mass production. None of this build-by-hand in onesies and twosies.

 

[quellish]

I'd build a family of missiles using the same guidance system and avionics. I'd make the smallest with the SM-3 Block IIA stack in mind (*cough* ArcLight), one for the Mk57 VLS, one for the Virginia Payload Module (that uses the full length of the tube and maybe 3-5 per cell. Make them air and surface launchable too so the USAF and US Army can use them. Make it clear that the project is a FAMILY so you don't end up with Boeing building one, Lockheed one or two, and Raytheon another. That way would be so expensive as to not even bother. If it has to be split have one company do the guidance and avionics, another the motors, and the last integration and warhead. (Or whatever split makes most sense to keep the cost down.) Avoid things like blowing the budget to get 3 more ISP or trying to build them out of unobtainium. Use construction methods that lend themselves to automated mass production. None of this build-by-hand in onesies and twosies.

Two companies are working on things that are very similar, but without speed or (probably) the range you have in mind.

 

[marauder2048]

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/chinas-deadly-missile-arsenal-growing-what-should-america-do-11406

IMHO, abrogate the INF Treaty for conventional missiles and build hundreds of AHW's or ATK's proposed Intermediate Range Global Strike Missile placing them on converted heli-carriers using the acres of flight deck to house dozens and dozens of silos.

I'd build a family of missiles using the same guidance system and avionics. I'd make the smallest with the SM-3 Block IIA stack in mind (*cough* ArcLight), one for the Mk57 VLS, one for the Virginia Payload Module (that uses the full length of the tube and maybe 3-5 per cell. Make them air and surface launchable too so the USAF and US Army can use them. Make it clear that the project is a FAMILY so you don't end up with Boeing building one, Lockheed one or two, and Raytheon another. That way would be so expensive as to not even bother. If it has to be split have one company do the guidance and avionics, another the motors, and the last integration and warhead. (Or whatever split makes most sense to keep the cost down.) Avoid things like blowing the budget to get 3 more ISP or trying to build them out of unobtainium. Use construction methods that lend themselves to automated mass production. None of this build-by-hand in onesies and twosies.

Seems like the Kinetic Energy Interceptor was (absent the air launch requirement...though I suppose it could be deployed in a manner similar to the air droppable IRBM targets) very very close in spirit and capability to what you describe.

 

[sferrin]

I'd build a family of missiles using the same guidance system and avionics. I'd make the smallest with the SM-3 Block IIA stack in mind (*cough* ArcLight), one for the Mk57 VLS, one for the Virginia Payload Module (that uses the full length of the tube and maybe 3-5 per cell. Make them air and surface launchable too so the USAF and US Army can use them. Make it clear that the project is a FAMILY so you don't end up with Boeing building one, Lockheed one or two, and Raytheon another. That way would be so expensive as to not even bother. If it has to be split have one company do the guidance and avionics, another the motors, and the last integration and warhead. (Or whatever split makes most sense to keep the cost down.) Avoid things like blowing the budget to get 3 more ISP or trying to build them out of unobtainium. Use construction methods that lend themselves to automated mass production. None of this build-by-hand in onesies and twosies.

Two companies are working on things that are very similar, but without speed or (probably) the range you have in mind.

Which companies / projects are these?

 

[marauder2048]

Two companies are working on things that are very similar, but without speed or (probably) the range you have in mind.

Which companies / projects are these?

I love Quellish's terse but tantalizing posts.

The land attack capability proposed for SM-6 Block 1a comes to mind. ATK and Aerojet have been contracted to look at a replacement for the current
Mk. 104 second stage. The replacement should be dual pulse, TVC and retain the existing tail control surfaces.

 

[DrRansom]

I do think that the emphasis on Prompt Global Strike has delayed fielding feasible tactical weapons. IMHO: there is no way to removing the 'nuclear misinterpretation' from a Prompt Global Strike weapon because the only warhead that makes any sense on a $40 million missile is a nuke. That endless debate has pushed development down expensive paths that still won't overcome the original problem.

On to tactical weapons, I think it would be good to mirror cruise missiles with hypersonic missiles, in order of fielding timing:
1) NSM class missile sized for F-35 bomb bay. Some sort of super SEAD / TEL sniper. Maybe take some of the advanced rocket motor technology proposed for the Lockheed Hit to Kill AAM.
2) JASSM class missile sized for tactical fighters and B-1B rotary launcher. Standard hypersonic boost glide vehicle.
3) AGM-86 class missile, this is probably where air breathing propulsion efforts should focus.

Generally, it should be a standard engine body and flight profile with different warhead types. Mass produce the rocket motor and vary the warhead types according to expected mission use.

For the standard based missile: perhaps the Navy needs a way of quickly killing ASBM TELs? CONOPS is: stealth surveillance drone locates TEL or SAM site, submarine launches hypersonic weapon to kill the target before it moves. Waiting an hour for a Tomahawk to arrive from the submarine isn't very good for that mission.

 

[bobbymike]

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/10/army-should-build-ship-killer-missiles-rep-randy-forbes/

I been calling for a crash development of an IRBM/MMBM for a long time to counter the Chinese massive missile arsenal. But mine would be shipped based for land attack.

 

[Moose]

Forbes is completely wrong. The Army has enough on its plate without taking on an anti-ship role that it has not experience with nor inclination towards. The Army is not at all the natural service to take the lead on a long-range missile project, the service has not even attempted to design anything with more than a couple hundred miles of range in decades and has no existing infrastructure nor knowledge base to support such a weapon. More broadly, it's a waste of money for the US. Land-based anti-ship missiles are purely defensive in nature, Japan and Taiwan might consider such weapons to protect themselves but the US has superior defenses against the navies of potential enemy Pacific powers: geographic isolation, the US Navy, and the US Air Force. We'd waste billions and years to give ourselves a weapon which would only really be useful as an export product. And it will do nothing to deter or counter China's alleged ASBM capability, unlike investments in better shipboard defenses and more capable Strike weapons.

 

[sferrin]

Forbes is completely wrong. The Army has enough on its plate without taking on an anti-ship role that it has not experience with nor inclination towards. The Army is not at all the natural service to take the lead on a long-range missile project, the service has not even attempted to design anything with more than a couple hundred miles of range in decades and has no existing infrastructure nor knowledge base to support such a weapon. More broadly, it's a waste of money for the US. Land-based anti-ship missiles are purely defensive in nature, Japan and Taiwan might consider such weapons to protect themselves but the US has superior defenses against the navies of potential enemy Pacific powers: geographic isolation, the US Navy, and the US Air Force. We'd waste billions and years to give ourselves a weapon which would only really be useful as an export product. And it will do nothing to deter or counter China's alleged ASBM capability, unlike investments in better shipboard defenses and more capable Strike weapons.

Yep. Develop missiles but stick them in VLSs at sea. (The only caveat would be make them dual-use so you could deploy them on land as well if need be.)