US Hypersonics - Prompt Global Strike Capability

[bobbymike]

AFRL demonstrates critical new warhead technologies for high speed weapons – Air Force Research Laboratory

afresearchlab.com

 

[Lc89]

What will its length be?

 

[jsport]

Myths or Moving Targets? Continuity and Change in China’s Nuclear Forces - War on the Rocks

The nuclear arsenal of the People’s Republic of China and its plans to use it are in the middle of an unprecedented shift. Just over a decade ago, China’s

warontherocks.com

 

[In_A_Dream]

It only seems necessary for the US to develop a hypersonic warhead if current ballistic missiles are not up to the task of deterrence. That seems like a hard sell right now; neither Russia or China have significant ABM defenses (outside Moscow). Also it isn't clear that China is developing a nuclear boost glide warhead, although Russia is known to operate one in very small numbers.

The US still seems in the early stages of hypersonic research and infrastructure development. Further testing and improvements should allow a break out capability to be quickly realized in the future if necessary. Any future ballistic missile (GBSD) should be designed with a glider payload in mind as a future option, but I don't think this is particularly hard to do - Avangarde flies on a Soviet vintage booster.

With where China is headed, it'd probably be prudent to assume they have a nuclear capable BG vehicle.

 

[Josh_TN]

Regardless, it doesn't really change the deterrence logic. China has no defense against US ballistic RVs.

 

[sferrin]

Regardless, it doesn't really change the deterrence logic. China has no defense against US ballistic RVs.

How do we know they're not working on ABMs? They certainly have in the past and have tested several ASATs.

China May Have Operational ASAT Program, Reports Say | Aviation Week Network

 

[Josh_TN]

Regardless, it doesn't really change the deterrence logic. China has no defense against US ballistic RVs.

How do we know they're not working on ABMs? They certainly have in the past and have tested several ASATs.

China May Have Operational ASAT Program, Reports Say | Aviation Week Network

I suspect China is working on ABM systems, but they have no historical programs to refer back to and would be starting from scratch in that effort compared to even Russia. The US of course has an extensive amount of research and testing (and deployments) of ABM weapons up to simulated ICBM targets, but even the US has an extremely limited ability to influence an ICBM attack. It seems wildly unlikely the Chinese have any current or breakout capability with regard to ICBM/SLBM RV interception. At a minimum, such a capability would be known to the US defense establishment even if it wasn't known in open source. You can't fire an ABM missile or BM simulator without an IR signature that can be detected from orbit. Plus almost any ballistic missile test involves issuing warnings to civilian aircraft across a wide patch of sky. The PRC tested the DF-21D against a floating target last year. The USAF was able to monitor the test with an RC-135, most likely as a result of the air traffic notices that had to be given ahead of time.

 

[sferrin]

Regardless, it doesn't really change the deterrence logic. China has no defense against US ballistic RVs.

How do we know they're not working on ABMs? They certainly have in the past and have tested several ASATs.

China May Have Operational ASAT Program, Reports Say | Aviation Week Network

I suspect China is working on ABM systems, but they have no historical programs to refer back to and would be starting from scratch in that effort compared to even Russia.

FJ ABM - Wikipedia

 

[Forest Green]

I suspect China is working on ABM systems,

They hit a satellite at about 860km altitude a while back.

 

[Josh_TN]

Regardless, it doesn't really change the deterrence logic. China has no defense against US ballistic RVs.

How do we know they're not working on ABMs? They certainly have in the past and have tested several ASATs.

China May Have Operational ASAT Program, Reports Say | Aviation Week Network

I suspect China is working on ABM systems, but they have no historical programs to refer back to and would be starting from scratch in that effort compared to even Russia.

FJ ABM - Wikipedia


View attachment 647861 View attachment 647862

View attachment 647863

Mea culpa, I'd not heard of it. Probably because it never went to operation. Presumably the warhead was nuclear, given that vintage? I suppose nothing stops the Chinese from breaking with the US practice of conventional interception, but deployment of an effective system would not be quick or go unnoticed. At a minimum, the ABM radars needed to operate any missile defense of any kind ought to be pretty obvious when in operation. I believe China operates a limited number of these looking towards the island chain, but I don't believe any existing system faces towards the pole. The Russians on the other hand have ringed their country with ABM radars, which presumably is a response to US SSBNs which could theoretically launch from almost any direction.

I still think that conventional RVs are enough for the coming decade and that basic research and infrastructure build up, along with the introduction of the first round of conventional weapons (AGM-183, CPS, LRHW) should be the US priorities. Shoe horning a W-93 into a large hypersonic glider can wait. As far as we know, China hasn't done this yet and Russia is counting theirs as part of their New START total, which means it doesn't increase their strategic deterrent.

 

[sferrin]

Regardless, it doesn't really change the deterrence logic. China has no defense against US ballistic RVs.

How do we know they're not working on ABMs? They certainly have in the past and have tested several ASATs.

China May Have Operational ASAT Program, Reports Say | Aviation Week Network

I suspect China is working on ABM systems, but they have no historical programs to refer back to and would be starting from scratch in that effort compared to even Russia.

FJ ABM - Wikipedia


View attachment 647861 View attachment 647862

View attachment 647863

Mea culpa, I'd not heard of it. Probably because it never went to operation. Presumably the warhead was nuclear, given that vintage? I suppose nothing stops the Chinese from breaking with the US practice of conventional interception, but deployment of an effective system would not be quick or go unnoticed. At a minimum, the ABM radars needed to operate any missile defense of any kind ought to be pretty obvious when in operation. I believe China operates a limited number of these looking towards the island chain, but I don't believe any existing system faces towards the pole. The Russians on the other hand have ringed their country with ABM radars, which presumably is a response to US SSBNs which could theoretically launch from almost any direction.

I still think that conventional RVs are enough for the coming decade and that basic research and infrastructure build up, along with the introduction of the first round of conventional weapons (AGM-183, CPS, LRHW) should be the US priorities. Shoe horning a W-93 into a large hypersonic glider can wait. As far as we know, China hasn't done this yet and Russia is counting theirs as part of their New START total, which means it doesn't increase their strategic deterrent.

Can't really wait on the W-93. Our nuclear warhead infrastructure is decrepit as it is. They need the exercise.

 

[Josh_TN]

I don't think there is anything else in the pipeline except the W88 modernization. I agree that we definitely need new warhead production sooner rather than later. I just don't think we need it to be hypersonic for the moment; we just need something that comes down at Mach 20-30 and goes bang.

 

[sferrin]

I don't think there is anything else in the pipeline except the W88 modernization. I agree that we definitely need new warhead production sooner rather than later. I just don't think we need it to be hypersonic for the moment; we just need something that comes down at Mach 20-30 and goes bang.

China isn't the only potential adversary.

 

[Josh_TN]

I don't think there is anything else in the pipeline except the W88 modernization. I agree that we definitely need new warhead production sooner rather than later. I just don't think we need it to be hypersonic for the moment; we just need something that comes down at Mach 20-30 and goes bang.

China isn't the only potential adversary.

I don't think Russia capable of setting up a capable ABM system outside of Moscow right now, if only for financial reasons. So I consider the deterrent is intact for the foreseeable future. Just to be clear, I have no problem with the US developing a hypersonic nuclear weapon, but I think there a lot of other much higher priorities in the hypersonic realm right now and money is tight. Right now it seems like its an open question if the replacement nuclear cruise missile gets funded.

 

[marauder2048]

I don't think there is anything else in the pipeline except the W88 modernization. I agree that we definitely need new warhead production sooner rather than later. I just don't think we need it to be hypersonic for the moment; we just need something that comes down at Mach 20-30 and goes bang.

If you want to deliver nuclear earth penetrating weapons by ICBM/SLBM the stall speeds on the some of the BGVs look to be
within the air-dropped EPW survivable impact velocities.

 

[sferrin]

stall speeds on the some of the BGVs look to be within the air-dropped EPW survivable impact velocities.

Where'd you find THAT information?

 

[marauder2048]

stall speeds on the some of the BGVs look to be within the air-dropped EPW survivable impact velocities.

Where'd you find THAT information?

https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2297&context=smallsat

Here, SWERVE was repurposed for exploration of Mars. The author indicates a stall speed of below Mach 2.

 

[Forest Green]

The Army Reveals the Range of Its New Hypersonic Weapon: 1,725 Miles

That means U.S. forces could easily strike targets in Russia and China during a conflict.

finance.yahoo.com

 

[quellish]

If you want to deliver nuclear earth penetrating weapons by ICBM/SLBM the stall speeds on the some of the BGVs look to be
within the air-dropped EPW survivable impact velocities.

The original Common Aero Vehicle requirements had deployment of conventional air dropped munitions in mind. It was going to slow down to aircraft like speeds and deploy SDB, WCMD, etc. A very different vehicle than AHW/SWERVE though.

 

[14yellow14]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1407861125513986052

View: https://twitter.com/lfx160219/status/1407861125513986052

 

[Josh_TN]

The Army Reveals the Range of Its New Hypersonic Weapon: 1,725 Miles

That means U.S. forces could easily strike targets in Russia and China during a conflict.

finance.yahoo.com

1725 miles is an oddly specific range for something that presumably can trade velocity for distance, up until the glider's stall speed. It also would be just far enough to reach Taiwan from Guam but *not* be able to range the mainland.

 

[Forest Green]

The Army Reveals the Range of Its New Hypersonic Weapon: 1,725 Miles

That means U.S. forces could easily strike targets in Russia and China during a conflict.

finance.yahoo.com

1725 miles is an oddly specific range for something that presumably can trade velocity for distance, up until the glider's stall speed. It also would be just far enough to reach Taiwan from Guam but *not* be able to range the mainland.

Depends where it's fired from I guess. Who knows?

 

[bobbymike]

Report to Congress on Conventional Prompt Global Strike and Long-Range Ballistic Missiles - USNI News

The following is the July 16, 2021 Congressional Research Service report, Conventional Prompt Global Strike and Long-Range Ballistic Missiles: Background and Issues. From the report Members of Congress and Pentagon officials have placed a growing emphasis on U.S. programs to develop hypersonic...

news.usni.org

 

[bobbymike]

Air-Launched Missiles Slated as First U.S. Hypersonic Weapons

Air-Launched Missiles Slated as First U.S. Hypersonic Weapons

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

 

[bobbymike]

China’s Hypersonic Missiles: Methods and Motives

Introduction The People’s Republic of China (PRC) is pursuing various hypersonic delivery systems to augment its already impressive arsenal of precision strike capabilities. Hypersonic missiles are emerging as a highly valued weapon system for the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and other...

jamestown.org

 

[Forest Green]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1453829960733503490

 

[JG87]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1453829960733503490

There will be three missiles CPS missiles in place of each gun. Six total. I have no clue about the VLS tubes, I am sure there is a plan in place for the MK 69 VLS tube

 

[In_A_Dream]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1453829960733503490

I wonder how soon it'll be before we have Chinese ships patrolling off the coasts of Hawaii, Cali, & the PNW with Hypersonic missiles.

 

[JG87]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1453829960733503490

I wonder how soon it'll be before we have Chinese ships patrolling off the coasts of Hawaii, Cali, & the PNW with Hypersonic missiles

Tomahawks have a 20.6 in diameter. The CPS has 34.5 in diameter according to Naval News. I am guessing that is the diameter. It does not say in the diagram. It just shows a 34.5 inch line across the missile. I am guessing it is much longer as well. I am not a math guy, but I am sure you guys can figure out how many can fit and in what. Current best guess for the weight is around 16,300 pounds.

Chinese ships off the US coast? Sooner than we think, they are building up fleet support ships. Give them a few years.

 

[Josh_TN]

Three per Tirdent tube, so the internet says. I'm not an expert, just a messenger.

 

[MihoshiK]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1453829960733503490

There will be three missiles CPS missiles in place of each gun. Six total. I have no clue about the VLS tubes, I am sure there is a plan in place for the MK 69 VLS tube

Source? The Naval News article doesn't mention numbers.

 

[14yellow14]

Probably the quickest solution is to replace each AGS with an APM module, so 6 CPS missiles in total makes sense.

 

[sferrin]

Why would you think only one module could fit in place of an AGS? Would not be at all surprised if you could fit two or three of those 3-round modules at EACH AGS site.

 

[Forest Green]

Why would you think only one module could fit in place of an AGS? Would not be at all surprised if you could fit two or three of those 3-round modules at EACH AGS site.

View attachment 667664

I think it may be due to weight not space.

 

[14yellow14]

Maybe this helps:

Conventional Prompt Strike - Advanced Payload Modules]: OPN funds required to procure 12 Advanced Payload Modules (APM) from the associated vendor.

https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/22pres/OPN_BA1_Book.pdf

 

[Firefinder]

Maybe this helps:

Conventional Prompt Strike - Advanced Payload Modules]: OPN funds required to procure 12 Advanced Payload Modules (APM) from the associated vendor.

https://www.secnav.navy.mil/fmc/fmb/Documents/22pres/OPN_BA1_Book.pdf

12 Modules for 3 shps.

Unless Im failing... What 6th grade math, which may be likely, that comes out to 4 per ship.

Which is 12 Hypersonics missiles per ship. Which assuming they are anything like the Viriginias that be 24 tomahawk size missile as well...

All in all a solid amount of weapons for a vessel that size for a after thought mod.

 

[jsport]

Why would you think only one module could fit in place of an AGS? Would not be at all surprised if you could fit two or three of those 3-round modules at EACH AGS site.

View attachment 667664

even w 18 one shot wonders against the vastness of Asia and or Europe. what does it protect itself with? We can call it the 1/16th warship.

 

[jsport]

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

The tendency in China to view U.S. PGS as a weapon of preemption and to place it in a crossdomain context—with linkages to ground, sea, space, and cyberspace—may guide Chinese military doctrine toward a more assertive posture, with an emphasis on use of asymmetric capabilities early in a conflict. This would provide a new twist to Beijing’s “active defense” and has begun to appear in its cyberspace research to counter Washington’s PGS-related systems. In the conventional field, Chinese views on preemption with the DF-21D have their own destabilizing influence. Yet, this is even more precarious in the nuclear realm, if such views are applied to China’s WU-14 development. Combined with concerns over Washington quickly, stealthily, and accurately decapitating Beijing’s nuclear and conventional arsenal or command and control centers, these shifts are likely to propel China’s seeking of other systems it regards as PGS, such as reusable unmanned hypersonic spacecraft and scramjets.

 

[Firefinder]

Why would you think only one module could fit in place of an AGS? Would not be at all surprised if you could fit two or three of those 3-round modules at EACH AGS site.

View attachment 667664

even w 18 one shot wonders against the vastness of Asia and or Europe. what does it protect itself with? We can call it the 1/16th warship.

How about those 80 missile cells it has built in? Those are staying in. Like really, even assuming a 50 percent reliabity rate on 40 loaded SM Weapons, which is the worse case scenerio and Raytheaon will kill itself if the Standards was shown to be that bad which the system never had, that still means that someone has to toss 20 missile at one ship to hit it let alone sink it. Which is no easy feat.

Or by being the next hardest thing to find to a sub. It a stealth ship, it going to be a pain to find to attack, and even when it is attack that stealthing will make any missile seeker jobs very hard to lock on and guided into the small target in a hoard of decoys.

Maybe also its not the vastness of Asia or Europe but select countries which have all their factories, HQs, military bases etc, in clusters were even one of these "one shot wonders" will do solid damage let alone 18 of them or any other missile toss their way.

 

[jsport]

Time Critical targets (TCT) TELs, which are often missed, are the tgt, thus really a Arsenal ships launching many slower missiles like hunting TAcit Rainbow/ Thirsty Saber is the requirement. Lower Altitude to survive S-500 and follow on SAMs (out to 1000miles) rather than high hypers which are going to invite interception.

Pentagon Has Tested A Suicide Drone That Gets To Its Target Area At Hypersonic Speed

The system would allow a drone to be delivered to a defended target far away in a matter of minutes, where it could then hunt down its target.

www.thedrive.com