US Hypersonics - Prompt Global Strike Capability

[bobbymike]

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.

AHW? I wouldn't so openly deride Army missile capabilities Redstone could do it if given the mission IMHO.

 

[sferrin]

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.

AHW? I wouldn't so openly deride Army missile capabilities Redstone could do it if given the mission IMHO.

Not to mention they'll never regain the capability by doing nothing. It's not like one can just wish it back into our toolbox.

 

[marauder2048]

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.

Unless it's sea-launched or air-launched we'd have to abrogate the INF Treaty which I'd fully support but our present political class is far too wobbly to go that very sensible route.

 

[marauder2048]

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.

AHW? I wouldn't so openly deride Army missile capabilities Redstone could do it if given the mission IMHO.

Agreed. Plus, it should factor into the ATACMS replacement analysis.

 

[DrRansom]

If you want a land-based AShM, for anti-access missions in the Western Pacific, wouldn't the need for operational / strategic mobility put some limit on the missile's size?

Or: the Army may find a Iskander copy to be more useful than a DF-21. So there is room for a missile which doesn't necessarily break the IMF, but doesn't replicate the transpacific striking ability of the USAF.

 

[Moose]

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.

AHW? I wouldn't so openly deride Army missile capabilities Redstone could do it if given the mission IMHO.

I don't mean to put down Redstone, I'm pretty confident they could produce something Pershing-II/DF-21D-ish given the mission. But it would still be a substantial step for the service to develop and field an operational system. A step requiring time and money devoted to giving the Army an anti-ship role, which the Air Force and Navy are already doing and who are better suited to do at any rate. My argument is not that this is something the Army is incapable of doing, it is that the time, money and effort needed to enable the Army to do this would be non-trivial and better directed elsewhere.


Sure AHW is the early stages of a process that could result in the Army developing a long-range weapon, but as yet it is a very early technology demonstrator riding on surplus SLBM stages from INF-compliant test stands. Maybe, if the Army gains a PGS weapon out of this effort, it could be gain the Anti-ship mission without a lot of headaches. But Rep Forbes is not calling for expanding the horizons of future PGS weapons, he's calling for an Army-specific ground-based ASM program.

 

[marauder2048]

My argument is not that this is something the Army is incapable of doing, it is that the time, money and effort needed to enable the Army to do this would be non-trivial and better directed elsewhere.

When the budgeteers ask "What can the Army do for US in the Pacific Pivot?" having something more to say than Air/Missile Defense (which is also the province of another service) is extremely important.

 

[bobbymike]

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.

AHW? I wouldn't so openly deride Army missile capabilities Redstone could do it if given the mission IMHO.

I don't mean to put down Redstone, I'm pretty confident they could produce something Pershing-II/DF-21D-ish given the mission. But it would still be a substantial step for the service to develop and field an operational system. A step requiring time and money devoted to giving the Army an anti-ship role, which the Air Force and Navy are already doing and who are better suited to do at any rate. My argument is not that this is something the Army is incapable of doing, it is that the time, money and effort needed to enable the Army to do this would be non-trivial and better directed elsewhere.


Sure AHW is the early stages of a process that could result in the Army developing a long-range weapon, but as yet it is a very early technology demonstrator riding on surplus SLBM stages from INF-compliant test stands. Maybe, if the Army gains a PGS weapon out of this effort, it could be gain the Anti-ship mission without a lot of headaches. But Rep Forbes is not calling for expanding the horizons of future PGS weapons, he's calling for an Army-specific ground-based ASM program.

Since INF no service has done IRBM/MMBM due to, well, INF. SLBM's are capable of being delivered inside INF Treaty ranges but aren't considered intermediate ranged weapons, obviously.

Rep. Forbes may be looking at the Pacific theater and thinking why not make China think twice about some future deployment because we can hit their carriers (future scenario) with a hypersonic PGS type weapon from Guam or Hawaii.

How hard or easy would it be to modify a retired heli-carrier by filling the deck with the future SSBN(X) CMC quad pack? I'm sure you could build then faster than the current singular need of 4X CMC/SSBN(X).

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.apcss.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/APCSS_Saalman_PGS_China_Apr2014.pdf

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-us-army-should-pursue-counter-a2-ad-mission-11486?page=1

 

[bobbymike]

Hmm this sounds interesting.

Inside the Pentagon - 10/30/2014

DOD Wants New 'Time-Critical Targeting' For 'A Road-Mobile ICBM Threat'

Posted: Oct. 29, 2014

The Defense Department, concerned about "a road-mobile ballistic missile threat" from an unnamed country, is convening a classified meeting with industry next week to explore "time-critical targeting capabilities," an information-gathering exercise that could be a potential precursor event for a new missile defense project. On Nov. 5, the office of the Pentagon's acquisition executive will host a "time-critical targeting" industry day, the Defense Department announced in an Oct. 29 Federal Business Opportunities notice. "This Request for Information seeks data on systems to defeat a mobile ballistic missile threat, delaying, degrading and destroying the system, its logistics and command and control elements throughout the threat kill chain from fielding through launch including defeat of missiles in flight," the notice states. The notice does not identify the specific threat of concern to the Pentagon. However, published DOD reports and comments by senior U.S. military officials have raised concerns about North Korea's development of a new road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile, the Hwasong-13, armed with a miniaturized nuclear weapon and enough reach to strike the United States.

North Korea has not yet flight-tested the Hwasong-13, but has twice paraded six of the mobile launchers; the Pentagon assesses the reliability of this weapon, with an estimated range of greater than 3,400 miles, to be "low," according to a February DOD report to Congress on North Korea's military. "They claim they have an intercontinental ballistic missile that's capable," Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, commander of U.S. Forces Korea, told reporters in the Pentagon on Oct. 24, referring to North Korea. "You know, they paraded something at least a couple of times. "Personally, I think that they certainly have had the expertise in the past," the Army four-star general continued. "They've had the right connections, and so I believe have the capability to have miniaturized a device at this point, and they have the technology to potentially actually deliver what they say they have. We have not seen it tested. And I don't think as a commander we can afford the luxury of believing perhaps they haven't gotten there." Pentagon officials plan for next week's industry day to include one-on-one sessions to meet with company officials privately, according to the notice.

"The purpose of the general industry day session is to discuss defeating time critical targets throughout the entire kill chain from prelaunch to post launch. The one-on-one sessions are intended to be a specific discussion to clarify contractor questions regarding the RFI," the notice states. -- Jason Sherman

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/mach-5-arms-race-welcome-hypersonic-weapons-101-11935

 

[bobbymike]

Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Global Strike Program Management and Aerospace/Systems Engineer Services
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=135a494a038a12dba3826f5cac5fc153&tab=core&_cview=0

The contractors' prime responsibility will be to provide engineering support to the Navy's Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Global Strike (IRCPGS) Program Manager and the Navy Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) Program Office. The Navy IRCPGS team is part of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (OUSD (AT&L)) Defense Wide Account (DWA) responsible for developing an advanced hypersonic weapon capability to support the war fighter. The Navy will be conducting their first flight experiment (FE-1); all tasks contained herein are in support of the planned Navy test.

Very interesting, nice find Mr. DSE looks like the Navy is still looking at an intermediate solution, I wonder if it is still the ATK designed missile? I can no longer find it at their website under products so very curious indeed what this intermediate system may look like.

 

[marauder2048]

Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Global Strike Program Management and Aerospace/Systems Engineer Services
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=135a494a038a12dba3826f5cac5fc153&tab=core&_cview=0

The contractors' prime responsibility will be to provide engineering support to the Navy's Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Global Strike (IRCPGS) Program Manager and the Navy Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) Program Office. The Navy IRCPGS team is part of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (OUSD (AT&L)) Defense Wide Account (DWA) responsible for developing an advanced hypersonic weapon capability to support the war fighter. The Navy will be conducting their first flight experiment (FE-1); all tasks contained herein are in support of the planned Navy test.

Very interesting, nice find Mr. DSE looks like the Navy is still looking at an intermediate solution, I wonder if it is still the ATK designed missile? I can no longer find it at their website under products so very curious indeed what this intermediate system may look like.

Great find!

@Bobbymike, are you referring to the previous SLIRBM effort?

Have they definitized the dimensions of the Virginia Payload Modules yet?

 

[bobbymike]

Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Global Strike Program Management and Aerospace/Systems Engineer Services
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=135a494a038a12dba3826f5cac5fc153&tab=core&_cview=0

The contractors' prime responsibility will be to provide engineering support to the Navy's Intermediate Range Conventional Prompt Global Strike (IRCPGS) Program Manager and the Navy Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) Program Office. The Navy IRCPGS team is part of the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics (OUSD (AT&L)) Defense Wide Account (DWA) responsible for developing an advanced hypersonic weapon capability to support the war fighter. The Navy will be conducting their first flight experiment (FE-1); all tasks contained herein are in support of the planned Navy test.

Very interesting, nice find Mr. DSE looks like the Navy is still looking at an intermediate solution, I wonder if it is still the ATK designed missile? I can no longer find it at their website under products so very curious indeed what this intermediate system may look like.

Great find!

@Bobbymike, are you referring to the previous SLIRBM effort?

Have they definitized the dimensions of the Virginia Payload Modules yet?

Yes there were two configurations of a 32" diameter two stage missile, if I recall correctly, one for submarine launch and one was actually called the land based (Army program I imagine) "Forward Based" Intermediate ranged missile with mobile launcher.

I thought the VPM was to be the same diameter as the Ohio missile tubes 88" I believe so three SLIRBM could fit in each compartment.

 

[bobbymike]

http://warontherocks.com/2015/02/rethinking-deep-strike-in-the-21st-century/#comment-634333

Article advocating buying advanced long range strike cruise missiles over a new bomber. I'm torn between the need for a new VLO aircraft and the old idea of a large 'arsenal airplane' carrying huge weapons load. Personally I would build a large BWB able to carry a massive missile payload. Interestingly, recently the USAF had an RFI for an air launch boost glide prompt strike missile.

 

[Flyaway]

http://warontherocks.com/2015/02/rethinking-deep-strike-in-the-21st-century/#comment-634333

Article advocating buying advanced long range strike cruise missiles over a new bomber. I'm torn between the need for a new VLO aircraft and the old idea of a large 'arsenal airplane' carrying huge weapons load. Personally I would build a large BWB able to carry a massive missile payload. Interestingly, recently the USAF had an RFI for an air launch boost glide prompt strike missile.

Sounds like someone is trying to recycle a very old idea. Seems rather preemptive when we don't actually know the capabilities of the LRS-B.

 

[sferrin]

http://warontherocks.com/2015/02/rethinking-deep-strike-in-the-21st-century/#comment-634333

Article advocating buying advanced long range strike cruise missiles over a new bomber. I'm torn between the need for a new VLO aircraft and the old idea of a large 'arsenal airplane' carrying huge weapons load. Personally I would build a large BWB able to carry a massive missile payload. Interestingly, recently the USAF had an RFI for an air launch boost glide prompt strike missile.

I could see a large BWB NON-STEALTHY cruise missile carrrier / heavy iron hauler. Basically a direct B-52 replacement. But the BWB component instantly sends the cost through the roof, stealthy or not. I think a long range strike cruise missile, instead of a new bomber, would be a terrible idea, for all the same reasons it never caught on before.

 

[bobbymike]

http://warontherocks.com/2015/02/rethinking-deep-strike-in-the-21st-century/#comment-634333

Article advocating buying advanced long range strike cruise missiles over a new bomber. I'm torn between the need for a new VLO aircraft and the old idea of a large 'arsenal airplane' carrying huge weapons load. Personally I would build a large BWB able to carry a massive missile payload. Interestingly, recently the USAF had an RFI for an air launch boost glide prompt strike missile.

I could see a large BWB NON-STEALTHY cruise missile carrrier / heavy iron hauler. Basically a direct B-52 replacement. But the BWB component instantly sends the cost through the roof, stealthy or not. I think a long range strike cruise missile, instead of a new bomber, would be a terrible idea, for all the same reasons it never caught on before.

Ya the BWB would probably cost the same or more AND not have the flexibility of a VLO design in terms of being able to get closer and/or evade modern A2AD countries.

As I mentioned and DSE posted up the link the USAF has a contract award for an air launched boost glide rocket BUT in many of these articles why is no one talking about other systems based on good old tried and tested ramjets or solid rockets for speed and payload, a mini-Skybolt or new ASALM, you could have M4-7 much sooner IMHO. Am I missing something? ???

 

[sferrin]

As I mentioned and DSE posted up the link the USAF has a contract award for an air launched boost glide rocket BUT in many of these articles why is no one talking about other systems based on good old tried and tested ramjets or solid rockets for speed and payload, a mini-Skybolt or new ASALM, you could have M4-7 much sooner IMHO. Am I missing something? ???

I'm right there with ya. We could have had ramjet, ALBM, or boost glide at any time over the last 3+ decades but for some reason nobody wants them. In the US anyway. Everybody else is jumping on them like gangbusters. Japan, Taiwan, China, Russia, France, and India all have supersonic air-breathing strike missiles in their arsenals. Not the US.

 

[shivering]

My question is "Why" has the USA not put such weapons on the frontline? At the end
of the day it is not a question of money but will, and that seems a bit of a mystery to me.

A hypersonic/high-supersonic cruise missile would be a tough thing to defend against,
especially if accurate, and ultimately a cheaper proposition. IMO.

 

[Grey Havoc]

My question is "Why" has the USA not put such weapons on the frontline? At the end
of the day it is not a question of money but will, and that seems a bit of mystery to me.

A hypersonic/high-supersonic cruise missile would be a tough thing to defend against,
especially if accurate, and ultimately a cheaper proposition. IMO.

Easy answer? Sanity and logic are in short supply, stupidity isn't.

 

[bobbymike]

DOD Plans FY-17 'Flight Experiment' Of Hypersonic Weapon

Posted: February 05, 2015


The Pentagon has set new plans to conduct the first "flight experiment" of a Conventional Prompt Global Strike Capability in fiscal year 2017 using a "scaled" version of the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, a move that comes after an investigation has formally cleared the Army-developed, boost-glide weapon of any role in last summer's test launch failure.

The plans for the FY-17 test are disclosed in Defense Department FY-16 budget request documents made available Feb. 5. The directorate for strategic warfare in the Pentagon's office of the under secretary for acquisition, which oversees the Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) project, is seeking $72.9 million for a range of activities in support of the proposed FY-17 hypersonic demonstration, according to the budget request.

DOD "completed System Requirements Review through collaboration with the national CPGS team for the next CPGS Flight Experiment 1 (FE-1) in FY 2017 using a scaled AHW glider," the budget request states.

According to the budget document, the project "began planning for fabrication of prototype miniaturized hardware in support of FE-1 with broad applicability across all CPGS concept."

In total, the Pentagon is now planning to spend $919.6 million to develop a CPGS capability as part of its new five-year spending plan, a 30-percent increase compared to the FY-15 future years defense plan.

Meantime, the Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command on Feb. 4 announced the findings of a failure review board that investigated the failed launch of the AWH Flight Test-2 on Aug. 24, 2014, just seconds after liftoff.

The cause of the test launch failure was an "external thermal protective cover designed to regulate motor temperature" which "interfered with the launch vehicle steering assembly," according to the Army.

The board also cleared the three-stage Strategic Target System (STARS) booster that was to lift the hypersonic glider to the upper atmosphere, as well as the Alaska launch complex of any culpability in the failure.

"The FRB found no issues with the hypersonic glide body, booster motors or the Kodiak Launch Complex," according to the Army statement.

Last summer's test objective was to lift the hypersonic glider to the upper atmosphere, where it was slated to separate and allow the payload to glide at speeds of at least 3,600 miles per hour, for 3,500 miles, to a U.S. test range in the Pacific Ocean. -- Jason Sherman

 

[marauder2048]

Last summer's test objective was to lift the hypersonic glider to the upper atmosphere, where it was slated to separate and allow the payload to glide at speeds of at least 3,600 miles per hour, for 3,500 miles, to a U.S. test range in the Pacific Ocean. -- Jason Sherman

And the INF treaty tops out at 3417 miles so we're good to go

 

[DrRansom]

Waiting for another year for a flight test?

 

[sferrin]

Waiting for another year for a flight test?

In the meantime SpaceX is going for a 2nd landing attempt mere weeks after the failure of the first. The difference between government "efficiency" and the private sector.

 

[bobbymike]

Waiting for another year for a flight test?

In the meantime SpaceX is going for a 2nd landing attempt mere weeks after the failure of the first. The difference between government "efficiency" and the private sector.

Maybe we can convince Elon Musk to build a SpaceSX (Strike X)

 

[sferrin]

Waiting for another year for a flight test?

In the meantime SpaceX is going for a 2nd landing attempt mere weeks after the failure of the first. The difference between government "efficiency" and the private sector.

You have to admit this is an apples and oranges comparison, no? One off new new design/hardware (scaled down version of the AHW) that is proposed to begin being funded in the FY16 budget vs hardware that's been in the pipe for quite awhile and tests which can be piggybacked off launches paid for by another customer and therefore incur a small incremental cost..

Good point. On the other hand it sounds like they're, effectively, going back to the drawing board. Why didn't they just start with the "scaled" version in the first place? What did they not learn on the last failed launch that they're going to have to make up for on this one? If the scaled version is more "production representative" (don't know that it is but why incur the added cost of a 2nd design if it's not) why didn't they just start with that one instead? Sorry but, as much as it pains me to say it, high speed flight in the US still strikes me as being run by the Keystone Cops compared to Russia, China, or India.

 

[DrRansom]

A check of Wikipedia indicates there has only been one flight test. Not really enough to call it a completed program.

Maybe the military wanted to shift from the AHW (with its 2300nm range) to something which was INF complaint. That would justify the decision.

Otherwise: there just isn't enough modern flight test data from high hypersonic speeds. Instead of jumping to the next project (with its greater ambition), can't DARPA at least get one design fully functional first? The whole XS-1 space launch system could be partially obsolete by tomorrow evening. Meanwhile, the US military doesn't have a ramjet development program working and boost-glide is still half a decade away.

DARPA's hypersonics research seems almost tailor made to achieve no meaningful progress.

 

[sferrin]

Good point. On the other hand it sounds like they're, effectively, going back to the drawing board. Why didn't they just start with the "scaled" version in the first place? What did they not learn on the last failed launch that they're going to have to make up for on this one? If the scaled version is more "production representative" (don't know that it is but why incur the added cost of a 2nd design if it's not) why didn't they just start with that one instead? Sorry but, as much as it pains me to say it, high speed flight in the US still strikes me as being run by the Keystone Cops compared to Russia, China, or India.

Just guessing here. AHW is based on the old Sandia SWERVE system. Changing scale means generating a new aerothermodynamic database including predicting transition at hypersonic speeds. Not a trivial nor uncertainty free endeavor.

Right. So why do it? Why not just keep working with AHW until they've learned what they need to? ???

 

[marauder2048]

Good point. On the other hand it sounds like they're, effectively, going back to the drawing board. Why didn't they just start with the "scaled" version in the first place? What did they not learn on the last failed launch that they're going to have to make up for on this one? If the scaled version is more "production representative" (don't know that it is but why incur the added cost of a 2nd design if it's not) why didn't they just start with that one instead? Sorry but, as much as it pains me to say it, high speed flight in the US still strikes me as being run by the Keystone Cops compared to Russia, China, or India.

Just guessing here. AHW is based on the old Sandia SWERVE system. Changing scale means generating a new aerothermodynamic database including predicting transition at hypersonic speeds. Not a trivial nor uncertainty free endeavor.

Right. So why do it? Why not just keep working with AHW until they've learned what they need to? ???

DrRansom and I speculated up-thread about INF treaty restrictions. The Army could not have deployed AHW in the IRBM
configuration initially tested. The only customer might have been the Navy in SLIRBM form (or much less likely, the Air Force in
air launched/air-dropped IRBM form).

If the Navy demurred then that would push the Army (as sole customer) into either a much shorter range system or a much longer (ICBM) range system. Seems they are exploring the latter which necessitated an AHW redesign (upscaling).

 

[Grey Havoc]

And ironically in the meantime the INF treaty has gone belly up, though it can be argued it had gone zombie well before that.

 

[sferrin]

Wow. I see I was being overly optimistic.

 

[marauder2048]

And ironically in the meantime the INF treaty has gone belly up, though it can be argued it had gone zombie well before that.

All true, sadly. But that doesn't prevent the rent-seeking, treaty compliance officers in the diplomatic corps from
keeping it in protracted, writhing death throes in the US.

 

[bobbymike]

DARPA Seeks Increased Spending For Hypersonic Air-Breathing Program

The Pentagon's advanced research arm seeks a nearly eight-fold funding increase in fiscal year 2016 on a joint program with the Air Force that focuses on flight demonstrations of critical hypersonic technologies.

 

[Flyaway]

DARPA Seeks Increased Spending For Hypersonic Air-Breathing Program

The Pentagon's advanced research arm seeks a nearly eight-fold funding increase in fiscal year 2016 on a joint program with the Air Force that focuses on flight demonstrations of critical hypersonic technologies.

If you don't mind me asking where did you see this info?

Thanks.

 

[bobbymike]

DARPA Seeks Increased Spending For Hypersonic Air-Breathing Program

The Pentagon's advanced research arm seeks a nearly eight-fold funding increase in fiscal year 2016 on a joint program with the Air Force that focuses on flight demonstrations of critical hypersonic technologies.

If you don't mind me asking where did you see this info?

Thanks.

Inside Defense pay site.

 

[Flyaway]

Thank you for that.

Have now found further details about it in this document from page 213 onwards.

http://www.darpa.mil/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=2147488711

 

[Grey Havoc]

And ironically in the meantime the INF treaty has gone belly up, though it can be argued it had gone zombie well before that.

All true, sadly. But that doesn't prevent the rent-seeking, treaty compliance officers in the diplomatic corps from
keeping it in protracted, writhing death throes in the US.

And not just those particular bureaucrats :

Bad Faith Negotiations

—Arie Church2/26/2015

US officials were aware while negotiating the New START agreement that Russia may have been simultaneously violating the Intermediate Nuclear Forces agreement, a senior Pentagon official testified on Wednesday. "We had concerns that they were in violation; we know now that they were," Unders​ecretary of Defense for Policy Christine Wormuth told the House Armed Services Committee. Wormuth also admitted that the numbers agreed upon actually allow Russia to deploy additional strategic nuclear weapons, while forcing the US to cut its deployed deterrent. She reasserted, however, that New START "protects our interests" and still allows the US to maintain "a very strong nuclear deterrent" suited to our strategic needs. Russia also has a "very large number" of tactical nuclear weapons outside the treaty that the US would like to see reduced, "but a country has to be willing to do that," which Russia is not, she added.

 

[gtg947h]

Waiting for another year for a flight test?

In the meantime SpaceX is going for a 2nd landing attempt mere weeks after the failure of the first. The difference between government "efficiency" and the private sector.

Musk knows that failures will happen on occasion when you push boundaries, and he's willing to take the risk with unmanned vehicles. Most government and public-corporation projects seem to be terrified of risk, and want absolute guarantees (which anyone at the technical level knows are BS) that the item will function flawlessly from day one.