US Hypersonics - Prompt Global Strike Capability

[bobbymike]

USA's hypersonic programme could rile Russia and China

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usas-hypersonic-programme-could-rile-russia-and-chi-429952/

Uh oh. We better not do it then. I'm sure a phone call or two from Xi to the democratic party will have them squealing about it being "destabilizing" in the press in no time.

"“Initially we might think that [hypersonic] is the silver bullet,” Mark Hilborne, lecturer at the defence studies department of King’s College London, told the Royal Aeronautical Society’s air power conference. “But these weapons might undermine strategic agreements between nuclear states.”

Hilborne says that both China and Russia are developing their own air-launched hypersonic weapons, but have revealed little about their programmes, in sharp contrast to the USA's transparency over its PGS effort.

While the USA has stated PGS will only carry a conventional payload, Hilborne says China and Russia may distrust Washington's assurances and there is no agreement in place to prevent the two from arming their hypersonic missiles with nuclear warheads.

China carried out its seventh hypersonic test in April, a similar number to that carried out by the USA, “and as far as we know they were broadly successful”, Hilborne says.
"

Hmmm, so all three are working on them; the US is being the most transparent. But it's he's worried about the US causing a problem? Typical.

The USSR/Russia knows their audience in the West and China has learned well how to exploit ignorance and fear.

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.thecipherbrief.com/article/rise-hypersonic-weapons-1095

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/10/tennessee-develop-mach-4-wind-tunnel.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2Fadvancednano+%28nextbigfuture%29&utm_content=FaceBook

 

[bobbymike]

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-vs-china-china-front-the-us-developing-hypersonic-weapons-18098

 

[bobbymike]

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/air-force-hypersonic-missiles-china-russia-pose-growing-danger-u-s/

There should be so many types of missiles out at Vandenberg AFB for testing they are lined up like planes at a busy airport.

 

[bring_it_on]

Conference bill: MDA to establish POR for countering hypersonics

Lawmakers are calling for the Missile Defense Agency to develop a program of record by the end of September 2017 for a capability that can counter non-nuclear weapons that can fly more than five times the speed of sound.

The fiscal year 2017 defense authorization conference bill states that the director of the MDA will "serve as the executive agent for the Department of Defense for the development of a capability to counter hypersonic boost-glide vehicle capabilities and conventional prompt global strike capabilities that may be employed against the U.S., its allies and U.S deployed forces," according to language in the joint explanatory statement.

This provision stems from language in the House version of the defense policy bill, and follows both China and Russia successfully testing hypersonic capabilities earlier this year.

The House also called for withholding $25 million from the headquarters expenditures for both the Pentagon's policy and acquisition shops until the MDA certified the establishment of the program of record. This limitation of funding, as well as language calling for a report on the implications of the Missile Technology Control Regime on such defensive systems, were not included in the final version of the conference report.

The conference bill calls for the MDA director to develop "architectures for hypersonic defense capability from detecting threats to intercepting such threats, that (A) involves systems of the military departments and the defense agencies; and (B ) includes both kinetic and nonkinetic options for such interception."

In addition, the MDA director should submit a report by March that details the architectures and sensors that are being evaluated, according to the bill. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is also instructed to submit a report by March on the military capabilities and gaps related to this threat.

In a separate provision, lawmakers called for the defense secretary to make a decision regarding milestone A approval for the conventional prompt global strike program. This decision should occur by September 2020 or "the date that is 240 days after the date of the successful completion of intermediate range flight 2 of such system," according to the conference bill.

Hypersonic weapons are intended to provide a long-range, rapid, precise capability for destroying high-risk targets that appear only briefly or are heavily guarded. Such weapons would evade enemy defenses in anti-access and area-denial threat environments.

Lawmakers are also withholding 25 percent of the research and development funds for the CPGS system until the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff submits a report on "whether there are warfighter requirements or integrated priorities list submitted needs for a limited operational conventional prompt strike capability" and if the program plan and schedule submitted supports these, according to the bill.

Earlier this month, the House and Senate both passed the bill, which awaits President Obama's signature.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/12/us-will-try-to-re-accelerate-hypersonic.html

 

[bobbymike]

Next Generation Strike Weapons RFI

https://govtribe.com/project/next-generation-strike-weapon-rfi

 

[bobbymike]

Air Force studying options for Next-Generation Strike Weapon across services

The Air Force is taking part in a study that will look at how multiple services will address future weapons needs, which could include possibilities for a joint strike weapon, a service spokeswoman told Inside the Air Force this week.

 

[bobbymike]

USAF advisors: No 'silver bullet' for hypersonic, maneuvering weapons

February 09, 2017

An Air Force advisory panel commissioned to explore options for defending against
hypersonic, maneuvering weapons, such as those China and Russia are flight
testing, concluded no "silver bullets" are at hand -- or in the development
pipeline -- to defeat this new class of threats, arguing the best defense may
be a new offense: the U.S. military's own credible, hypersonic weapon.

An unclassified executive summary of the National Academies of Sciences' Committee on Future
Air Force Needs for Defense Against High-Speed Weapon Systems notes that
Russian and Chinese investments have been "significant, their advancements
notable, and their accomplishments in some cases startling."

The United States "may be facing a threat from a new class of weapons that will effectively combine
speed, maneuverability and altitude in ways that could challenge this nation's
tenets of global vigilance, reach and power," the executive summary states.

The Air Force assistant secretary for science, technology and engineering commissioned the
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine in April 2015 to
assess the threat of high-speed weapons and provide recommendations to counter
the threat. The panel formed to conduct the work published an unclassified
version of its findings in a November 2016 report.

The study concluded that China and Russia are flight testing high-speed, maneuvering weapons that
"may endanger both forward-deployed U.S. forces and even the continental United
States itself."

The report notes that these weapons, if ever deployed, could operate "in the seams of U.S.
national security organizational structure" currently in place to deal with
incoming threats.

High-speed maneuvering weapons "are not simply evolutionary threats," the panel warned.
Such weapons "can combine speed and maneuverability between the air and space
regimes to produce significant new offensive capability that could pose a
complex defensive challenge," according to the summary.

The committee -- in its investigation that included meeting with government scientists, operational
commanders, acquisition officials and Pentagon policymakers -- reported it
"could find no formal strategic operational concept or organizational sense of
urgency" to counter high-speed maneuvering weapons.

"Considering the nature of the potential threat posed by HSMW systems, the identification of a
leadership structure to pursue the actions recommended in this report deserves
attention," the summary states. The unclassified summary does not enumerate
recommendations, but notes the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization
Act directs the Missile Defense Agency to establish a program of record to
develop and field a defensive system to defeat hypersonic boost-glide and
maneuvering ballistic missiles.

The report notes that at the outset of its work the committee hoped to identify technologies -- or a
suite of technologies -- to counter high-speed maneuvering threats. "The
committee saw many concepts and heard about many different possible approaches,
but in the end it concluded that there are no 'silver bullets.'"

Accordingly, the unclassified summary indicates the committee does not have solid
recommendations for specific technologies to pursue. Instead, the panel urges
"sustained research and development" across a range of approaches that must be
pursued "in a coordinated and timely manner."

Absent any near-term technology to halt a hypersonic, maneuvering weapon, the U.S.
military should consider a new form of deterrence, according to the panel.

"The best defense, perhaps the only defense, against an opponent's high-speed maneuvering weapon
may be another high-speed maneuvering weapon," according to the report. --
Jason Sherman

 

[bobbymike]

http://aviationweek.com/defense/classified-report-hypersonics-says-us-lacking-urgency?NL=AW-19&Issue=AW-19_20170214_AW-19_134&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_4&utm_rid=CPEN1000000230026&utm_campaign=8664&utm_medium=email&elq2=70fc0fb9b221420d898822a80002ab17

Weapons Warning

Initial Pentagon and acquisition leaders show positive reaction to National Academies report

Report calls for increased urgency in DARPA-led air-breathing and boost-glide hypersonic programs

USAF urged to take lead role in development and experimentation

Hypersonic glide vehicles and missiles exceed conventional ballistic and cruise missile defense system capabilities

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.scout.com/military/warrior/story/1683130-is-china-ahead-of-us-with-hypersonic-weapons

 

[Flyaway]

Podcast: Hypersonics Wake-Up Call

http://aviationweek.com/defense/podcast-hypersonics-wake-call

 

[antigravite]

Podcast: Hypersonics Wake-Up Call

At last!!!!!

A.

 

[bobbymike]

http://aviationweek.com/timeline-us-hypersonics-starts-and-stops-1947

 

[marauder2048]

Podcast: Hypersonics Wake-Up Call

http://aviationweek.com/defense/podcast-hypersonics-wake-call

Thanks for posting but it's a pretty feeble discussion, largely devoid of technical and treaty considerations that
merely summarizes an unclassified executive summary that's solely focused on Air Force
(as opposed to DARPA, Navy and Army) efforts.

 

[Flyaway]

Podcast: Hypersonics Wake-Up Call

http://aviationweek.com/defense/podcast-hypersonics-wake-call

Thanks for posting but it's a pretty feeble discussion, largely devoid of technical and treaty considerations that
merely summarizes an unclassified executive summary that's solely focused on Air Force
(as opposed to DARPA, Navy and Army) efforts.

It's disappointing that the US seems so unfocused on this topic compared to China & Russia.

 

[sferrin]

Podcast: Hypersonics Wake-Up Call

http://aviationweek.com/defense/podcast-hypersonics-wake-call

Thanks for posting but it's a pretty feeble discussion, largely devoid of technical and treaty considerations that
merely summarizes an unclassified executive summary that's solely focused on Air Force
(as opposed to DARPA, Navy and Army) efforts.

It's disappointing that the US seems so unfocused on this topic compared to China & Russia.

It requires taking a lot of risk, and I think we all know what that means in the West.

 

[bobbymike]

Podcast: Hypersonics Wake-Up Call

http://aviationweek.com/defense/podcast-hypersonics-wake-call

Thanks for posting but it's a pretty feeble discussion, largely devoid of technical and treaty considerations that
merely summarizes an unclassified executive summary that's solely focused on Air Force
(as opposed to DARPA, Navy and Army) efforts.

It's disappointing that the US seems so unfocused on this topic compared to China & Russia.

It requires taking a lot of risk, and I think we all know what that means in the West.

Many times the US could have rapidly exploited a technological advancement and didn't now we have to play catch-up.

There are unbuilt aircraft project books I would be very interested in unbuilt strategic programs book.

 

[marauder2048]

Podcast: Hypersonics Wake-Up Call

http://aviationweek.com/defense/podcast-hypersonics-wake-call

Thanks for posting but it's a pretty feeble discussion, largely devoid of technical and treaty considerations that
merely summarizes an unclassified executive summary that's solely focused on Air Force
(as opposed to DARPA, Navy and Army) efforts.

It's disappointing that the US seems so unfocused on this topic compared to China & Russia.

But that's not what the study says despite AvWeek's attempts to misrepresent it for headline purposes.

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/22/china-russia-hypersonic-missile-threat-under-revie/

 

[bobbymike]

From Inside Defense

DOD promises 'certain' Conventional Prompt Global Strike capabilities for EUCOM, PACOM
February 22, 2017

The Defense Department, which two years ago expressed doubts over near-term prospects for fielding an affordable hypersonic strike weapon, has promised U.S. commanders in Europe and the Pacific an initial hypersonic strike capability between fiscal years 2018 and 2022.

This change of plans -- revealed in previously unreported written responses from then-Secretary Ash Carter to House lawmakers in 2015 and 2016 -- come as the Pentagon is readying later this year to conduct Flight Experiment 1, a pivotal event in the campaign to define a U.S. hypersonic strike weapon program of record by 2020.

The Joint Requirements Oversight Council, led by Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Paul Selva, last year assured the heads of U.S. European and Pacific commands, who are watching China and Russia routinely flight test high-speed weapons, that "certain" hypersonic strike capabilities would be fielded within the FY-17 to FY-22 future years defense plan. Others are "slated for fielding beyond the FYDP," Carter wrote last year.

The then-defense secretary was responding to written questions from Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) following a March 4, 2016, hearing of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee. Aderholt asked whether any combatant commanders have formally identified a need for a Conventional Prompt Global Strike capability, or the means to strike targets anywhere on earth in as little as an hour.

Gen. Curtis Scaparrotti, EUCOM chief, and Adm. Harry Harris, PACOM head, according to Carter, both "submitted high-priority requirements for these capabilities" as part of the routine process combatant commanders use to influence Pentagon resource decisions, in this case the shape of the FY-18 budget and the accompanying five-year spending plan.

Two years ago, Carter told the House panel -- responding again to questions from Aderholt -- that DOD did not see an immediate, clear path to a hypersonic strike weapon. DOD "is not confident that a realistic, affordable hypersonic strike concept capability can be fielded in the near future," the defense secretary wrote in 2015.

Lawmakers, however, then directed the Pentagon in the FY-16 National Defense Authorization Act to make plans to begin technology development on "at least one conventional prompt global strike weapon" by the end of FY-20.

Now, the Pentagon is on track for the Conventional Prompt Global Strike program "to reach a milestone A decision by the end of FY-20, consistent with congressional direction," Carter told lawmakers last year.

Carter, in his 2016 response to Aderholt recently published by the House panel, further revealed that in a 2013 memorandum, the JROC directed that the Conventional Prompt Global Strike program "focus on demonstrating the feasibility of hypersonic boost-glide for a potential intermediate-range strike system independent of service or basing/platform." The then-defense secretary added that the department's "[c]urrent CPGS technology maturation effort will inform the future program of record."

Since 2003, the Defense Department has explored a range of options for giving commanders new ways to strike high-value, time-sensitive targets -- from terrorists to weapons of mass destruction to anti-satellite weapons -- anywhere on the planet in about an hour.

In 2008, Congress quashed a Navy proposal to fund the modification of submarine-launched Trident missiles to carry conventional weapons and perform the prompt strike mission over concern that such systems, when employed, could be misconstrued for nuclear launches. Air Force plans to develop a boost-glide hypersonic weapon stalled out after the Hypersonic Test Vehicle-2 project, pursued with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, resulted in test flights in 2010 and 2011 that terminated early.

In 2011, the Army -- which was commissioned to work on a hypersonic capability as a hedge against Air Force failure -- successfully demonstrated its Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, a so-called boost-glide system that paired a three-stage rocket with a cone-shaped hypersonic glide vehicle.

The AHW was designed to launch along a trajectory different than that of a ballistic missile, never leaving the atmosphere. It released a cone-shaped glide vehicle designed by Sandia National Laboratories to travel at hypersonic speeds, defined as at least five times the speed of sound or at least 3,600 miles per hour.

During a planned second flight test of the AHW in 2014, however, a problem unrelated to the warhead prompted officials to abort the mission seconds after takeoff. The Pentagon's acquisition directorate for strategic warfare, sponsor of the Conventional Prompt Global Strike development effort, then tapped the Navy to conduct the next test flight by modifying the Army-developed Advanced Hypersonic Weapon to fit in a submarine missile tube and launch the prototype weapon from a land-based test facility.

That event -- Flight Experiment 1 -- "will demonstrate advanced avionics, miniaturization of subsystems, manufacturability and guidance algorithms," Carter wrote last year. The component miniaturization "supports accommodation of a hypersonic glide body that could be deployed on land, sea or air platforms," the then-defense secretary wrote.

"By keeping the trade space open across all potential platforms, the CPGS effort has maintained the possibility of a Family of Systems that could base on land, sea or air platforms," Carter asserted.

 

[marauder2048]

Aerojet's FY2016 Hypersonic wins from their Annual Report released March 1, 2017.

 

[bobbymike]

Aerojet's FY2016 Hypersonic wins from their Annual Report released March 1, 2017.

Great find thanks!

 

[marauder2048]

I especially like the acronym:


Overhead Miniature Sensor Experiment for Hypersonic Glide Vehicle (HGV) Tracking (OMniSciEnT)

Synopsis. The specific area MDA is considering in this solicitation is an on-orbit demonstration of the technology required to track emerging non-ballistic weapons traveling at high Mach velocities.
The Agency envisions the demonstration to consist of two (2), 50-kilogram class satellites in Low Earth Orbit operated within modular, open system architecture with common user interfaces.
Capabilities to be demonstrated are sensor, optic design, communications (crosslinks and downlinks), and pointing accuracy. l.


The Agency envisions contract award(s) in 2017 for a two (2) satellite demonstration program.
This demonstration will include launch, on-orbit operations, and participation in multiple campaigns to assess the technical performance and operational utility of the concept.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=8712d0487e43d619407e67af3934b255&tab=core&_cview=0

 

[sferrin]

I especially like the acronym:


Overhead Miniature Sensor Experiment for Hypersonic Glide Vehicle (HGV) Tracking (OMniSciEnT)

Synopsis. The specific area MDA is considering in this solicitation is an on-orbit demonstration of the technology required to track emerging non-ballistic weapons traveling at high Mach velocities.
The Agency envisions the demonstration to consist of two (2), 50-kilogram class satellites in Low Earth Orbit operated within modular, open system architecture with common user interfaces.
Capabilities to be demonstrated are sensor, optic design, communications (crosslinks and downlinks), and pointing accuracy. l.


The Agency envisions contract award(s) in 2017 for a two (2) satellite demonstration program.
This demonstration will include launch, on-orbit operations, and participation in multiple campaigns to assess the technical performance and operational utility of the concept.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=8712d0487e43d619407e67af3934b255&tab=core&_cview=0

I hope they aren't planning on waiting for a fully operational system before beginning to look at weapons to actually deal with HGVs.

 

[bring_it_on]

U.S. Army Could Adopt Kinetic Energy Projectile Aerospace Daily & Defense Report Mar 30, 2017
James Drew

It might not be as devastating as a tactical nuclear weapon, but the U.S. Army believes Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s Kinetic Energy Projectile could have the same deterrent effect.
The new warhead was developed as a so-called conventional prompt strike capability and is designed to rain down thousands of cube-shaped metal objects over the battlefield at high velocity.

The warhead detonates at a preset altitude above the target area, spraying down hot metal fragments that tear through flesh and metal over a wide area. This special-purpose weapon would devastate the mechanized advance of an opposing army, without requiring common cluster munitions that often leave unexploded ordnance on the battlefield.

Facing an imbalance of long-range precision fires against Russia in eastern Europe, Maj. Gen. William Hix, the Army’s director of strategy, plans and policy, says this warhead could soon be paired with the Mach 3-speed Army Tactical Missile System (ATacMS). He says the psychological impact of its deployment would be comparable to tactical nuclear weapons.

“It’s a Kinetic Energy Projectile that benefits from the speed the launch vehicle provides it,” Hix said at a directed energy summit in Washington on March 29. “It’s essentially a big shotgun shell. Not much will survive it. If you’re a crewmember in a main battle tank, you might survive, but the vehicle will be rendered non-mission capable.”

Hix was briefed about the warhead during a visit to the laboratory. He says it has been successfully demonstrated but not yet adopted by the services for operational use......

 

[Grey Havoc]

Sounds like they are getting a trifle desperate there.

 

[marauder2048]

Sounds like they are getting a trifle desperate there.

A multi prior year effort to update ATACMS with a Cluster Munition Compliant Area Effects Warhead smacks of desperation?

 

[bobbymike]

Sounds like they are getting a trifle desperate there.

A multi prior year effort to update ATACMS with a Cluster Munition Compliant Area Effects Warhead smacks of desperation?

Wonder how many metal projectiles could fit on this 1970s proposal attached

 

[bobbymike]

Hypersonic ISR

The Air Force will negotiate a fiscal year 2017 sole-source contract with GoHypersonics to "investigate hypersonic vehicle concepts based on relevant [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] mission specifications, and then develop surrogate based models to use within quick-turn analysis methods to support conceptual design," according to documents posted March 30 on Federal Business Opportunities. "ISR Futures," a development planning program to explore next-generation hunter-killer, signals intelligence and high-altitude, persistent mission sets, will help develop hypersonic platform concepts and provide data for trade analyses on vehicle and engine systems.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Sounds like they are getting a trifle desperate there.

A multi prior year effort to update ATACMS with a Cluster Munition Compliant Area Effects Warhead smacks of desperation?

As with the 1970s era proposal bobbymike mentioned above, I'm afraid that on a open battlefield it would be generally useful only as a first strike and/or last ditch weapon. In practice it would be highly indiscriminate, especially in situations where the enemy has managed to disperse and/or closed to close combat range with your forces, and would be extremely reliant on very detailed & accurate information that's continuously updated without fail. Not to mention that you would need a very large number of such ATACMS rounds on hand to get the necessary weight of fire, just for one average sized engagement alone. Remember this is being pushed as a counter to large Armoured/mechanised formations, and unlike the 1970s proposal, it wouldn't have anywhere near the throw weight of a heavy booster delivered strike. The latter, or even a 'Rods from God' system, would likely to be far more cost effective than what they are proposing (somewhat more accurate in the case of the orbital strike). Certainly cluster munitions & land mines are a far better investment, reluctance of politicians to accept reality notwithstanding.

 

[sferrin]

Sounds like they are getting a trifle desperate there.

A multi prior year effort to update ATACMS with a Cluster Munition Compliant Area Effects Warhead smacks of desperation?

As with the 1970s era proposal bobbymike mentioned above, I'm afraid that on a open battlefield it would be generally useful only as a first strike and/or last ditch weapon. In practice it would be highly indiscriminate, especially in situations where the enemy has managed to disperse and/or closed to close combat range with your forces, and would be extremely reliant on very detailed & accurate information that's continuously updated without fail. Not to mention that you would need a very large number of such ATACMS rounds on hand to get the necessary weight of fire, just for one average sized engagement alone.

The same could be said for any foreign conventional ballistic missile as well. An ATACMs stuffed with SFWs on the other hand. . .

 

[Ian33]

Sounds like they are getting a trifle desperate there.

A multi prior year effort to update ATACMS with a Cluster Munition Compliant Area Effects Warhead smacks of desperation?

As with the 1970s era proposal bobbymike mentioned above, I'm afraid that on a open battlefield it would be generally useful only as a first strike and/or last ditch weapon. In practice it would be highly indiscriminate, especially in situations where the enemy has managed to disperse and/or closed to close combat range with your forces...

Artillery kills. It is also, strangely, not very mobile in most cases. This weapon would be perfect. Against a tank advance? It's going to anhilate your supporting ground troops (Iraqi and Al Qaeda et al found this out the hard way under MRLS bombardment against their tank and foot advances onto allied positions they had besiged)

As an aside, for your eyes and ears on the ground, Brigade Reconnaissance is going to be 30, 50 miles behind the lines, SF even further. This system would be absolutely ideal. Laid up, grab the GPS co-ordinates and rain hell down? Peachy on that tank staging area.

In short then? For heavy sustained ground combat? A field commander with eyes on would be all over this like whores on a sugar daddy.

 

[marauder2048]

I'm afraid that on a open battlefield it would be generally useful only as a first strike and/or last ditch weapon. In practice it would be highly indiscriminate, especially in situations where the enemy has managed to disperse and/or closed to close combat range with your forces, and would be extremely reliant on very detailed & accurate information that's continuously updated without fail.

Not really true given TACMS proximity sensor (plus forthcoming active seeker) and trajectory shaping.
What's especially attractive about the KEP warhead is that if the fuze is not set for an airburst you get, in essence,
a unitary penetrator that's useful against a harder target set. So a nice multi-purpose warhead that's an option
for the higher loadout LRPF missile.

The range penalty from accommodating cluster munitions has to be weighed against
their decreasing utility vs. an enemy equipped with C-RAM and APS.

 

[bobbymike]

Big Deterrence Means Prompt Global Strike Capability

— Wilson Brissett 4/3/2017

​Prompt conventional global strike should be part of a suite of “integrated global capabilities” that would make up an expanded vision of strategic deterrence, Gen. John Hyten, commander of US Strategic Command, said Friday. Within such a big deterrence vision, STRATCOM would be seen as “a global warfighting command,” instead of a “functional command,” and one whose mission is “providing capabilities that have to be integrated into the geographic commands,” Hyten said at the Military Reporters and Editors conference in Arlington, Va. Hyten praised the “amazing capability” of the January global strike mission that originated from Whiteman AFB, Mo., when two B-2s dropped “84 separate bombs” on two ISIS training camps in Libya. But he said this sort of operation would not be “fast enough in all scenarios.” To provide a quicker alternative, Hyten said, “I continue to advocate for the development of a conventional prompt strike capability.” In the past, advocates have proposed converting ICBMs or SLBMs to carry non-nuclear warheads. Hyten said a “sea-based” PGS system would be safest, and he would prefer to place them on “surface ships,” rather than submarines. Capabilities like PGS, integrated into a multi-domain command and control model, would provide the US with “a fundamental asymmetric advantage over our adversaries,” Hyten said.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Along with his advocacy of nuclear modernization Hyten is fast becoming my favorite General.

 

[bring_it_on]

Stratcom Wants Ship-Based Prompt Conventional Strike

The U.S. has been pursuing prompt global strike technology for decades but keeps running into technological, political and policy snags. For instance, scramjet-powered missiles and maneuvering hypersonic glide vehicles are incredibly difficult to develop due to the shockwaves and temperatures experienced in those flight regimes. Using conventionally armed intercontinental ballistic missiles with hypersonic re-entry vehicles runs the risk of Armageddon by triggering Russia and China’s nuclear indications and warning systems.

Gen. John Hyten, who oversees all U.S. nuclear forces, including land- and submarine-based missiles and heavy bombers, backs surface ships for prompt conventional strike, by arming them with devastating new types of superfast, long-range missiles. Ships are ideal because they do not carry nuclear weapons and can be maneuvered into place as a clear warning sign to an adversary. The U.S. would likely phone the government of any nation it intended to attack, and perhaps even Moscow and Beijing, to give prior warning of a conventional strike.

There are some pre-existing programs that seem to fit Hyten’s vision. One is the Raytheon Tactical Tomahawk integrated with the Joint Multi-Effects Warhead System, which has been developed by the U.S. and UK to penetrate reinforced structures. Another is ArcLight, a Darpa program to pair a new hypersonic glider with Raytheon’s Standard Missile-3 booster. It would carry a 100-200 lb. payload over 2,000 nm. However, lawmakers have been opposed to using missile defense interceptors as prompt strike weapons.

Various other technologies, some in the black world, might be rapidly put into development. The Strategic Capabilities Office is also tinkering with modifications to existing weapons.

Recently, the Army considered arming its Mach 3 Army Tactical Missile System (Atacms) with the Kinetic Energy Projectile, which rains down metal cubes at hypervelocity. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories developed and tested the warhead as a potential conventional prompt strike capability. Maj. Gen. William Hix, the Army’s director of strategy, plans and policy, compared the deterrent effect of such a warhead to that of a tactical nuclear weapon.

 

[marauder2048]

The future of the past is here! (courtesy of TomS)

 

[sferrin]

2011. . .darn. :-[ Was hoping it was a new possibility.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Artillery kills. It is also, strangely, not very mobile in most cases. This weapon would be perfect. Against a tank advance? It's going to anhilate your supporting ground troops (Iraqi and Al Qaeda et al found this out the hard way under MRLS bombardment against their tank and foot advances onto allied positions they had besiged)

As an aside, for your eyes and ears on the ground, Brigade Reconnaissance is going to be 30, 50 miles behind the lines, SF even further. This system would be absolutely ideal. Laid up, grab the GPS co-ordinates and rain hell down? Peachy on that tank staging area.

In short then? For heavy sustained ground combat? A field commander with eyes on would be all over this like whores on a sugar daddy.

Indeed it would have some utility against unlimbered towed guns and other static artillery positions, not so much against any decent self-propelled systems though. As for taking out infantry supporting tank attacks on your positions? That would only really work if the enemy isn't crafty (or is short on APCs/IFVs) and doesn't' dismount his infantry right on top of your positions. Otherwise you'll have a danger close situation on your hands (no target discrimination what so ever with this new warhead remember).

Another problem is that, with regards as to the United States and other NATO member countries, dedicated deep reconnaissance units are currently in very short supply. What units that weren't disestablished in the great 'Peace Dividend' gold rush were mostly disbanded (or in a few cases converted to COIN/CT units) over the last ten years or so. The idea was that they were no longer necessary because UAVs and UGVs (in particular elements of the FCS and it's ilk) would be replacing them. Of course things didn't work out that way, to put it mildly. Infamously earlier on this year, the bulk of the few remaining deep reconnaissance units in the U.S. Army were disbanded by bureaucrats literally acting on autopilot, even though the rationale for standing down those units had long since disappeared. The dead hand of Transformation reaching out from beyond the grave, one could say. It's also safe to say that a fair few senior officers and defence planners probably got quite a shock when units that they were planning on sending to Eastern Europe or to be available for same were dissolved right out from under them, in echoes of the fiasco with the 9th Light Division in 1990.

And all of that is before you get to the issue of whether or not GPS and other satellite support will be even available in a major war, given present trends. NATO, including the United States, is currently wide open on the orbital assets defence front. Not to mention that UAVs & UGVs, especially MALE class and above in the case of the former, are heavily reliant on said satellite support.

I'm afraid that on a open battlefield it would be generally useful only as a first strike and/or last ditch weapon. In practice it would be highly indiscriminate, especially in situations where the enemy has managed to disperse and/or closed to close combat range with your forces, and would be extremely reliant on very detailed & accurate information that's continuously updated without fail.

Not really true given TACMS proximity sensor (plus forthcoming active seeker) and trajectory shaping.
What's especially attractive about the KEP warhead is that if the fuze is not set for an airburst you get, in essence,
a unitary penetrator that's useful against a harder target set. So a nice multi-purpose warhead that's an option
for the higher loadout LRPF missile.

The range penalty from accommodating cluster munitions has to be weighed against
their decreasing utility vs. an enemy equipped with C-RAM and APS.

Unfortunately the KEP warhead doesn't use that fuze; it's only an option AFAIK with the Block IVA unitary warhead & isn't supposed to enter service anyway until 2018 at the earliest. The KEP warhead would also likely be incompatible with the proposed (primarily anti-ship) active sensor, as that is being specifically modified with the Block IVA unitary warhead in mind and anyhow is still in early development with no deployment date mooted as of yet. As for reprogramming the warhead inflight, the Block IVA missile unlike some previous ATACMS variants does not have a datalink of any description. Therefore you would be limited to selecting and loading a pre-programmed template prior to launch.

With regards as to C-RAM type systems and various APS, the former has never really been tested against submunitions primarily due to budget (and, in some places, political) constraints, and what tests are known to have involved the latter apparently have had mixed results. If a C-RAM or APS can't successfully engage their carriers (e.g. artillery shells or mortar rounds) before separation, submunitions are highly liable to ruin one's day.