US Hypersonics - Prompt Global Strike Capability
- Thread starter bobbymike
- Start date
-
- Tags
- united states
- Joined
- 27 May 2007
- Messages
- 676
- Reaction score
- 40
quellish said:
I wonder if there is much accuracy nevermind tracking ability from higher altitudes like GEO where you can actually see at least some more surface at once. Don't know how many sats would be needed for some coverage on just the equator. Notice that GEO is on the equator so you only see large areas of for example Russia at a shallow angle and nothing at the poles. You'd need some larger constellations again.
And when its cloudy, you have problems. Microwaves can penetrate clouds but I have no idea how they would be as weapons. You'd need huge antennas at least. There are interesting engineering problems here.
There has been some interesting rumblings regarding Iridium and their new Iridium NEXT satellite constellation. They seem to be offering 50Kg subpayload spaces to customers.
http://www.iridium.com/About/IridiumNEXT/HostedPayloads.aspx
Buying up a significant number of slots to put in a rudimentary LEO optical surveillance cloud is not an unrealistic option (if I were an intelligence director of a lesser country, I would be trying to do a consortium buy with other lesser countries' intelligence agencies to have a shared system). At 500 miles altitude, the optical issues aren't horrific, and considering modern adaptive optics and computing power, meeting the payload weight restriction with a high megapixel camera is possible, though the data rate is poor (a way around that is an IR laser space-to-ground comms link, but that cuts into observation time and eats into your payload even if you could use the same tracking mount).
I mention this because prompt global strike ultimately requires either significant theater level surveillance assets and overflight exposure, or a LEO observation platform constellation to watch everything at decent resolutions. And in this day and age, everyone wants more information that can be analyzed later, so a global surveillance system is more attractive. Considering Iridium's main profit center is the DoD contract they have, having prompt global strike surveillance equipment on board would be a sneaky way to deploy the necessary equipment. The conspiracy theorists can also assume that a single "Rod from God" could also be deployed this way too...
http://www.iridium.com/About/IridiumNEXT/HostedPayloads.aspx
Buying up a significant number of slots to put in a rudimentary LEO optical surveillance cloud is not an unrealistic option (if I were an intelligence director of a lesser country, I would be trying to do a consortium buy with other lesser countries' intelligence agencies to have a shared system). At 500 miles altitude, the optical issues aren't horrific, and considering modern adaptive optics and computing power, meeting the payload weight restriction with a high megapixel camera is possible, though the data rate is poor (a way around that is an IR laser space-to-ground comms link, but that cuts into observation time and eats into your payload even if you could use the same tracking mount).
I mention this because prompt global strike ultimately requires either significant theater level surveillance assets and overflight exposure, or a LEO observation platform constellation to watch everything at decent resolutions. And in this day and age, everyone wants more information that can be analyzed later, so a global surveillance system is more attractive. Considering Iridium's main profit center is the DoD contract they have, having prompt global strike surveillance equipment on board would be a sneaky way to deploy the necessary equipment. The conspiracy theorists can also assume that a single "Rod from God" could also be deployed this way too...
- Joined
- 14 June 2006
- Messages
- 2,297
- Reaction score
- 485
Shooting with lasers from GEO doesn't necessarily mean IMINT from GEO, or from satellites at all. From what is known on the AfPak drone operations, the hints on the target locations come always from HUMINT on the ground with a sparkling from low-altitude drone IMINT and from SIGINT. Aiming is another matter, though, but that needs only a huge mirror on the laser battlestation (maybe it would be possibile tu use the same mirror used to steer the laser beam). If you want coverage of high latitude locations, you'll have to have lasers in Molnya-type orbits (polar orbits would need too much satellites). All in all, I continue to prefer very high-altitude very high-endurance drones orbiting in theatre for these niche applications.
quellish said:
I'm willing to concede the adaptive optics issue, but hasn't there been enough work on inflatable systems to get the necessary mirror size at low weight? Though there is the issue of the true allowed payload envelope and moment of inertia interfering with the host satellite's operations (and vice versa).
It should be noted that the Iridum NEXT ball is rolling, now that Iridium has contracted with SpaceX for Falcon9 launches. With SpaceX the costs for constellation launch are now merely out of this world, as a opposed to out of their mind...
- Joined
- 14 June 2006
- Messages
- 2,297
- Reaction score
- 485
Usually it is explained like this: adaptive optics have their limits, and work best when there is little atmosphere distortion (by extension, little atmosphere at all). i.e. with telescopes on high rise (mountains with laminar flow wind conditions). When you look down from space, all the atmosphere is there between you and the target, which is usually very deep under the thickest and most turbulent strata. So, the explanation ends, putting a heavy and complex adaptive optics system on a weight-constrained recon satellite is not worth the effort: better work on other things, like sensors, movement correcting software, platform stability, even optics diameter. Don't know if this is true or partially true and a dizinformatya ruse, but AFAIK no current of future recon satellite is known to have an adaptive optics system. The black world is not as black as before in this matters, so if an adaptive optic is really used or planned for use in space, it must be very black indeed.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,562
- Reaction score
- 7,187
Naval PGS News from Defensetech.org
Loading Prompt Global Strike in VLS Cells Will Transform U.S. Naval Power
By Craig Hooper
Defense Tech Naval Warfare Analyst
As the venerable Tomahawk missile becomes too vulnerable for certain targets, naval observers have wondered why the Navy isn’t racing to fill the U.S. surface fleet’s 7,804 Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells with a new generation of anti-ship or fast land-attack munitions. Our wait is over. The big brains at DARPA are aiming to appropriate VLS cells for the Prompt Global Strike Mission. Meet ArcLight–the weapon that will change the way the world thinks about U.S. surface combatants:
“The ArcLight program will design, build, and flight test a long range (> 2,000 nm) vehicle that carries a 100–200 lb payload(s). ArcLight is based on an SM-3 Block II booster stack, a hypersonic glider and is capable of being launched from a Mark 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) tube. The development of the ArcLight system will enable high speed, long range weapons capable of engaging time critical targets and can be launched from Naval surface and sub-surface assets, and Naval/Air Force air assets.”
Enlisting VLS cells for the Prompt Global Strike (PGS) Mission would be a boon to PGS advocates. First, by decoupling PGS from conventional ballistic missile platforms (the assumed primary delivery system for PGS), Congressional concerns that certain countries might misinterpret a PGS hit as a nuclear strike evaporate–and with Congress aboard, the funding that has crimped PGS development will, assuredly, open.
Read more: http://defensetech.org/#ixzz0t9C8vicO
Defense.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although an interesting concept I liked my idea of transforming an old helicopter carrier deck to hold hundreds of launch cells of various diameter able to launch everything up to ATK's Forward Based Conventional Strike Missile (ground to ground KEI)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forward-Based Conventional Strike
The U.S. Strategic Command has identified a requirement for the rapid fielding of a new, long-range, prompt conventional strike capability against time-sensitive, high-value targets.
ATK is leading a team that includes Textron, Draper Laboratory, and Honeywell to meet this emerging requirement. The FBCS concept proposed by the team will provide a conventional, land-based, penetrating long-range strike capability that will give the National Command Authority a means to attack fixed, hard and deeply buried, mobile and re-locatable targets with improved accuracy anywhere in the world.
The concept is focused on four key tasks:
* Integration of highly accurate guidance systems for the launch vehicle and weapon.
* Packaging and delivery of conventional weapons capabilities.
* Integration of responsible mobile range safety with operational launch command and control.
* Demonstration of flight hardware.
Loading Prompt Global Strike in VLS Cells Will Transform U.S. Naval Power
By Craig Hooper
Defense Tech Naval Warfare Analyst
As the venerable Tomahawk missile becomes too vulnerable for certain targets, naval observers have wondered why the Navy isn’t racing to fill the U.S. surface fleet’s 7,804 Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells with a new generation of anti-ship or fast land-attack munitions. Our wait is over. The big brains at DARPA are aiming to appropriate VLS cells for the Prompt Global Strike Mission. Meet ArcLight–the weapon that will change the way the world thinks about U.S. surface combatants:
“The ArcLight program will design, build, and flight test a long range (> 2,000 nm) vehicle that carries a 100–200 lb payload(s). ArcLight is based on an SM-3 Block II booster stack, a hypersonic glider and is capable of being launched from a Mark 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) tube. The development of the ArcLight system will enable high speed, long range weapons capable of engaging time critical targets and can be launched from Naval surface and sub-surface assets, and Naval/Air Force air assets.”
Enlisting VLS cells for the Prompt Global Strike (PGS) Mission would be a boon to PGS advocates. First, by decoupling PGS from conventional ballistic missile platforms (the assumed primary delivery system for PGS), Congressional concerns that certain countries might misinterpret a PGS hit as a nuclear strike evaporate–and with Congress aboard, the funding that has crimped PGS development will, assuredly, open.
Read more: http://defensetech.org/#ixzz0t9C8vicO
Defense.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although an interesting concept I liked my idea of transforming an old helicopter carrier deck to hold hundreds of launch cells of various diameter able to launch everything up to ATK's Forward Based Conventional Strike Missile (ground to ground KEI)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forward-Based Conventional Strike
The U.S. Strategic Command has identified a requirement for the rapid fielding of a new, long-range, prompt conventional strike capability against time-sensitive, high-value targets.
ATK is leading a team that includes Textron, Draper Laboratory, and Honeywell to meet this emerging requirement. The FBCS concept proposed by the team will provide a conventional, land-based, penetrating long-range strike capability that will give the National Command Authority a means to attack fixed, hard and deeply buried, mobile and re-locatable targets with improved accuracy anywhere in the world.
The concept is focused on four key tasks:
* Integration of highly accurate guidance systems for the launch vehicle and weapon.
* Packaging and delivery of conventional weapons capabilities.
* Integration of responsible mobile range safety with operational launch command and control.
* Demonstration of flight hardware.
- Joined
- 6 August 2007
- Messages
- 3,356
- Reaction score
- 3,489
Skybolt said:
For an imaging platform having adaptive optics would not help anything. How big you can get your mirror is the big limiter to resolution, not distortion.
For a weapon, again I'd have to see if there is an open literature source for this, but in the 80s JASON did a study that blew the idea out of the water. Pointing an orbiting laser down just didn't make sense.
As far as adaptive optics specifically, you couldn't do an artificial guide star looking down. Telescopes and... other things... use a sodium laser to create an artificial star by exciting sodium that lives in a layer about 60 miles above you. Using that as a reference is what allows the system to create corrections.
If you had a layer of sodium at ground level, the laser would be the least of your worries.
- Joined
- 14 June 2006
- Messages
- 2,297
- Reaction score
- 485
ArcLight, neat concept, though a 100-200 lbs payload seems puny. You have to have near perfect accuracy, or attack en masse. BTW, to reach the stated range, ArcLight would have to use a ballistic trajectory. If attacking fixed targets like the ones attacked by cruise waves, the target would have some warning time if using a fairly non.sophisticated radar. If this come along, expect a flurry of acivity on terminal defense lasers or radar-controlled high-speed guns. The hypersonic glider warhed could be made to attack at low level, though, but accuracy would be even more critical due to the small size.
- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Messages
- 11,047
- Reaction score
- 8,467
http://www.afgsc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123215431
ICBM test launches showcase Global Strike capabilities
by Tech.Sgt. Marcus McDonald
Air Force Global Strike Command Public Affairs
7/28/2010 - BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. -- The chance to launch two Air Force Global Strike Command Minuteman III ICBM test vehicles in June, was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for two missile crews.
Missile maintenance and operational task forces from F.E. Warren AFB, Wyo., and Malmstrom AFB, Mont., combined with the 576th Flight Test Squadron at Vandenberg AFB, Calif., to launch the missiles June 16 and 30 for a "very rare and extraordinary opportunity," said Capt. Isaac Earnhart, 341st Operations Support Squadron missile combat crew commander.
These Malmstrom and F.E. Warren crews continue a 50-year record of deterring potential adversaries. It is a unique training opportunity for crews to turn the launch keys that send an actual missile rocketing into the sky.
The process is careful and deliberate.
"You don't get a second chance with an ICBM test launch," said Mr. Richard Serrano, 576 FLTS instrumentation laboratory team chief at Vandenberg. "You have to do it right the first time."
A successful launch is also a moment of pride for the missile maintenance team, according to Tech. Sgt. Robert Houck, 341 MMXS missile handling team chief at Malmstrom. "It shows what we work on is still a vital weapons system...there's a certain pride in ownership in knowing they put it together and watched it take off," he said.
"Every flight test provides valuable experience to the crews and an evaluation of the missile's accuracy and reliability in its intended operational environment," said Col. Carl DeKemper, 576th FLTS Commander at Vandenberg. "These launches are part of a continuous self-assessment of our proficiency."
The final launch sequence begins years earlier as pre-determined criteria are used to carefully select a missile from the field and then transport it hundreds of miles to Vandenberg for processing by the 576 FLTS, said Capt. Douglas Carmean, 576 FLTS chief of ICBM test operations.
"The process requires deposturing a missile on alert after months of detailed monitoring and shipping the 60,000-lb. missile nearly half the length of the country," said Capt. Earnhart, missile combat crew commander at Malmstrom who took part in the June 30 launch.
Once it has been transported, all missile components are individually inspected. Test equipment is installed and all components are reunited at the launch facility to once again take the shape of a flight-ready missile.
Teams from the operational missile bases come to Vandenberg and assemble the missile as they would at their home bases, said 1st Lt. Jared Hostetler, 341st Missile Maintenance Squadron mechanical flight commander at Malmstrom. The test launches validate maintenance technicians' skills from the operational wings, he said.
Prior to the launch, missile crews are certified by undertaking intensive simulated test launches, Serrano said. Launch day is like the Super Bowl to the missile community, a rare opportunity to see the pay-off of all of the preparation, said Capt. Earnhart.
Another Minuteman III launch is scheduled from Vandenberg Sept. 15, by a missile task force from the 91st Missile Wing, Minot Air Force Base, N.D.
**Note: Col. David Bliesner will accept command of the 576th Flight Test Squadron during a change of command ceremony Aug. 2.
VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- Ascending into space, a scheduled Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile successfully launches here at 3:01 a.m., Wednesday, June 16 from Launch Facility-10. The missile's single re-entry test vehicle traveled approximately 4,190 miles before hitting its pre-determined target near the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. (U.S. Air Force photo /Joe Davila)
ICBM test launches showcase Global Strike capabilities
by Tech.Sgt. Marcus McDonald
Air Force Global Strike Command Public Affairs
7/28/2010 - BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. -- The chance to launch two Air Force Global Strike Command Minuteman III ICBM test vehicles in June, was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for two missile crews.
Missile maintenance and operational task forces from F.E. Warren AFB, Wyo., and Malmstrom AFB, Mont., combined with the 576th Flight Test Squadron at Vandenberg AFB, Calif., to launch the missiles June 16 and 30 for a "very rare and extraordinary opportunity," said Capt. Isaac Earnhart, 341st Operations Support Squadron missile combat crew commander.
These Malmstrom and F.E. Warren crews continue a 50-year record of deterring potential adversaries. It is a unique training opportunity for crews to turn the launch keys that send an actual missile rocketing into the sky.
The process is careful and deliberate.
"You don't get a second chance with an ICBM test launch," said Mr. Richard Serrano, 576 FLTS instrumentation laboratory team chief at Vandenberg. "You have to do it right the first time."
A successful launch is also a moment of pride for the missile maintenance team, according to Tech. Sgt. Robert Houck, 341 MMXS missile handling team chief at Malmstrom. "It shows what we work on is still a vital weapons system...there's a certain pride in ownership in knowing they put it together and watched it take off," he said.
"Every flight test provides valuable experience to the crews and an evaluation of the missile's accuracy and reliability in its intended operational environment," said Col. Carl DeKemper, 576th FLTS Commander at Vandenberg. "These launches are part of a continuous self-assessment of our proficiency."
The final launch sequence begins years earlier as pre-determined criteria are used to carefully select a missile from the field and then transport it hundreds of miles to Vandenberg for processing by the 576 FLTS, said Capt. Douglas Carmean, 576 FLTS chief of ICBM test operations.
"The process requires deposturing a missile on alert after months of detailed monitoring and shipping the 60,000-lb. missile nearly half the length of the country," said Capt. Earnhart, missile combat crew commander at Malmstrom who took part in the June 30 launch.
Once it has been transported, all missile components are individually inspected. Test equipment is installed and all components are reunited at the launch facility to once again take the shape of a flight-ready missile.
Teams from the operational missile bases come to Vandenberg and assemble the missile as they would at their home bases, said 1st Lt. Jared Hostetler, 341st Missile Maintenance Squadron mechanical flight commander at Malmstrom. The test launches validate maintenance technicians' skills from the operational wings, he said.
Prior to the launch, missile crews are certified by undertaking intensive simulated test launches, Serrano said. Launch day is like the Super Bowl to the missile community, a rare opportunity to see the pay-off of all of the preparation, said Capt. Earnhart.
Another Minuteman III launch is scheduled from Vandenberg Sept. 15, by a missile task force from the 91st Missile Wing, Minot Air Force Base, N.D.
**Note: Col. David Bliesner will accept command of the 576th Flight Test Squadron during a change of command ceremony Aug. 2.
VANDENBERG AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. -- Ascending into space, a scheduled Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile successfully launches here at 3:01 a.m., Wednesday, June 16 from Launch Facility-10. The missile's single re-entry test vehicle traveled approximately 4,190 miles before hitting its pre-determined target near the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands. (U.S. Air Force photo /Joe Davila)
Attachments
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,562
- Reaction score
- 7,187
From Draper Labs Website
Advancing GN&C: Technology for Reentry Vehicles
In addition to maintaining deployed strategic systems and modernizing existing systems, Draper is analyzing the GN&C technology needed to enable Prompt Global Strike (PGS) capability to deliver non-nuclear payloads with high accuracy to virtually anywhere on the globe in less than 1 hour.
Draper has conducted experiments with sponsors to demonstrate some of the technologies needed for PGS. In addition, Draper IR&D studies have been initiated to enable the generation of boost-through reentry trajectories in near-real time and to provide in-flight target location updates. Proving this guidance capability will provide a technology base for evolving its use on future smaller missiles, such as the Submarine-Launched Global Strike Missile (SLGSM), on tactical submarines such as the SSGN and NSSN.
--------------------------------------------
Bolding Mine. The bolded line is quite interesting as it discusses Draper Labs development of guidance for warheads that boost through re-entry (is this because there is a "glide phase" while it travels to the target?) and provides inflight target updates (Does this mean a ballistic missile warhead traveling thousands of miles able to hit a moving target?)
I would be interested to hear other interpretations.
Advancing GN&C: Technology for Reentry Vehicles
In addition to maintaining deployed strategic systems and modernizing existing systems, Draper is analyzing the GN&C technology needed to enable Prompt Global Strike (PGS) capability to deliver non-nuclear payloads with high accuracy to virtually anywhere on the globe in less than 1 hour.
Draper has conducted experiments with sponsors to demonstrate some of the technologies needed for PGS. In addition, Draper IR&D studies have been initiated to enable the generation of boost-through reentry trajectories in near-real time and to provide in-flight target location updates. Proving this guidance capability will provide a technology base for evolving its use on future smaller missiles, such as the Submarine-Launched Global Strike Missile (SLGSM), on tactical submarines such as the SSGN and NSSN.
--------------------------------------------
Bolding Mine. The bolded line is quite interesting as it discusses Draper Labs development of guidance for warheads that boost through re-entry (is this because there is a "glide phase" while it travels to the target?) and provides inflight target updates (Does this mean a ballistic missile warhead traveling thousands of miles able to hit a moving target?)
I would be interested to hear other interpretations.
- Joined
- 12 July 2008
- Messages
- 394
- Reaction score
- 132
One problem with prompt Global Strike is GPS makes pretty great guidance for much less trouble then radar… except during reentry when the warhead is blinded for a period by its own plasma shroud. That also means you can’t transmit updated target coordinates to the missile during that period, if they had such a capability in the first place.
Tests have been done in the past to try to beat this by using larger GPS antennas, the whole body of the warhead actually, and trying to disrupt the plasma by releasing other gases from the warhead. The results are classified, but seem to have had little success.
Another concept for beating this problem is to have the warhead pull up into a sort of glide after reentry, buying it time to reestablish GPS contact and resume guiding, it would then dive again and strike the target. I think this may be what boost through reentry means. I’ve seen a rocket motor proposed as the means of entering the ‘pull up’ phase. Guidance fins may not work for that purpose compared to some kind of reaction jet control system.
However they might also just mean they are working on guidance improvements from the boost phase of flight all the way to the reentry phase. Either way, hitting a moving target with a ballistic missile from intercontinental range is certainly not out of the question. The US would love to be able to do that because of potential ‘WMD convoy’ and ‘Bin Laden Taxi’ scenarios.
Tests have been done in the past to try to beat this by using larger GPS antennas, the whole body of the warhead actually, and trying to disrupt the plasma by releasing other gases from the warhead. The results are classified, but seem to have had little success.
Another concept for beating this problem is to have the warhead pull up into a sort of glide after reentry, buying it time to reestablish GPS contact and resume guiding, it would then dive again and strike the target. I think this may be what boost through reentry means. I’ve seen a rocket motor proposed as the means of entering the ‘pull up’ phase. Guidance fins may not work for that purpose compared to some kind of reaction jet control system.
However they might also just mean they are working on guidance improvements from the boost phase of flight all the way to the reentry phase. Either way, hitting a moving target with a ballistic missile from intercontinental range is certainly not out of the question. The US would love to be able to do that because of potential ‘WMD convoy’ and ‘Bin Laden Taxi’ scenarios.
- Joined
- 6 August 2007
- Messages
- 3,356
- Reaction score
- 3,489
Sea Skimmer said:
Both have been demonstrated several times already. SWERVE demonstrated one solution for communication during re-entry, STS demonstrated another, and since then several other solutions have been used. GPS can work throughout reentry, though it does not need to for these applications.
One of the bigger problems was range safety for RVs, getting full time telemetry and being able to terminate a naughty RV during a test (or, of course, operationally). That's been solved as well.
- Joined
- 12 July 2008
- Messages
- 394
- Reaction score
- 132
quellish said:
Sure lots of technology has been demonstrated, but something being demonstrated and something working well enough that the problem is solved are two different things. It can be a very long road from concept demonstration to an operational production system. Anyone who knows the true results wouldn’t be able to talk about it.
Since even a 10 meter CEP isn’t good enough for all targets even with a warhead moving at as much as 6km at impact its safe to assume that work is going to keep going forward for a long time yet. Work against moving targets meanwhile will basically have reason to improve until we can hit a 600mph transport plane loaded with nerve gas with an ICBM launched from Vandenberg.
Did I ever post this paper (I can't find anything in Search if I did so I apologize if this is a double post) on the concept for using the F-15 as the basis of a "Global STrike Eagle" concept?
http://www.responsivespace.com/Papers/RS4%5CPapers%5CRS4_2001P_Chen.pdf
Randy
http://www.responsivespace.com/Papers/RS4%5CPapers%5CRS4_2001P_Chen.pdf
Randy
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,562
- Reaction score
- 7,187
Ranulfc - Interesting paper. Coming full circle there was discussion on another thread about what a Boeing employee (VP Global Strike Systems) was talking about Boeing having a Global Strike Weapons Systems in or near production. If you look at this report it shows a "Boeing Global Strike Missile" on the back of an F-15.
Everyone was discussing what type of "aircraft" it was but I was speculating it might be something like this system.
Everyone was discussing what type of "aircraft" it was but I was speculating it might be something like this system.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,562
- Reaction score
- 7,187
Pentagon Nears Finding on Hypersonic Glider Test Failure
Thursday, Aug. 19, 2010
By Elaine M. Grossman
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Defense Department is close to determining what caused a hypersonic glide vehicle to fail during an April flight test, a senior official said today (see GSN, March 15).
(Aug. 19) - The Hypersonic Test Vehicle-2, shown in an illustration. The Defense Department could soon draw conclusions about why an HTV-2 flight test in April resulted in a crash, a senior-level official said (U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency/Aviation Week).
The event was expected to demonstrate technology usable in a conventional "prompt global strike" weapon capable of striking targets anywhere around the world within one hour.
A Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency review board "is in the last phases of its internal review" of the Hypersonic Test Vehicle-2's maiden flight test and should report out in "the next month or so," Zachary Lemnios said at a breakfast session with reporters this morning. "When that review board finishes their work, we’ll come out with a statement on exactly what’s happened."
Using the HTV-2 technology, a joint DARPA-Air Force effort is aimed at developing a Conventional Strike Missile capable of achieving Mach 20 speeds.
Lemnios, who directs the Pentagon's Defense Research and Engineering office, said a significant amount of data was gathered during the April 22 test. Launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., the test vehicle reportedly achieved successful separation from its Minotaur 4 boosters high in the atmosphere.
However, nine minutes into the flight, the dart-shaped glider lost communication and never made it to its notional target, which had been set in the Pacific Ocean north of Kwajalein Atoll.
Initial DARPA analysis was that the loss of the vehicle might have resulted from its self-destruct apparatus, which could automatically terminate flight if it sensed any divergence from its programmed route, according to one defense consultant. Alternatively, any number of other operating failures might have led to the crash, according to officials.
The Hypersonic Test Vehicle-2 reportedly lacks a device that might have signaled activation of the self-destruct sequence, somewhat complicating the DARPA analysis.
"There does not appear to be a mechanism in there that would tell you whether it was self-destruction or not," said the consultant, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the ongoing failure review.
Eric Mazzacone, a DARPA spokesman, said the engineering-review board has been meeting since the end of May to scour "millions" of data points gathered during the flight test.
“Following senior-level [Pentagon] review of those findings, key observations may be released, subject to classification and export-control restrictions," he told Global Security Newswire today.
U.S. Strategic Command chief Gen. Kevin Chilton has said he wants to see the first Conventional Strike Missile fielded at Vandenberg by 2015 (see GSN, July 1, 2009). It would remain on alert, backed up by two spares, for potentially hitting a time-urgent target such as top terrorist leaders spotted at a hideout or a North Korean nuclear missile being readied for launch, according to defense officials.
The HTV-2 has a carbon-fiber aero shell that allows it thermal protection as the delta-wing vehicle glides on the edge of space towards its target. During the test, the vehicle was expected to fly roughly 5,700 kilometers in less than half an hour.
Lemnios would not say today whether the April disappointment is expected to delay the prompt-strike missile's deployment or to hike flight-test costs, which were projected last spring to reach or even surpass $500 million. He also declined to speculate whether plans for the next such HTV-2 flight, slated for March 2011, would be affected.
"I'm not going to make that determination until I see exactly what came out of the review board," said Lemnios, who is responsible for overseeing DARPA efforts.
Pentagon budget officials -- assembling their request for fiscal 2012 funding -- recently examined the possibility of splitting off the futuristic HTV-2 technology development effort from the Air Force-led Conventional Strike Missile program, according to defense sources. The White House is expected to submit the new budget to Congress next February.
If implemented, the idea would have been to allow the Air Force-led missile program to be fielded more quickly by pairing it with a less futuristic payload-delivery vehicle, available in the nearer term.
However, defense officials opted to defer a decision on the matter until after next year's flight test, these sources said.
Though Lemnios would not discuss program or budget specifics, he did describe the general thinking behind the HTV-2 effort.
"The risk that we put into those programs -- the risk level that we're willing to put into those investments -- is enormously high," he told reporters at the Defense Writers Group event. "The impact is also high."
Thursday, Aug. 19, 2010
By Elaine M. Grossman
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Defense Department is close to determining what caused a hypersonic glide vehicle to fail during an April flight test, a senior official said today (see GSN, March 15).
(Aug. 19) - The Hypersonic Test Vehicle-2, shown in an illustration. The Defense Department could soon draw conclusions about why an HTV-2 flight test in April resulted in a crash, a senior-level official said (U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency/Aviation Week).
The event was expected to demonstrate technology usable in a conventional "prompt global strike" weapon capable of striking targets anywhere around the world within one hour.
A Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency review board "is in the last phases of its internal review" of the Hypersonic Test Vehicle-2's maiden flight test and should report out in "the next month or so," Zachary Lemnios said at a breakfast session with reporters this morning. "When that review board finishes their work, we’ll come out with a statement on exactly what’s happened."
Using the HTV-2 technology, a joint DARPA-Air Force effort is aimed at developing a Conventional Strike Missile capable of achieving Mach 20 speeds.
Lemnios, who directs the Pentagon's Defense Research and Engineering office, said a significant amount of data was gathered during the April 22 test. Launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., the test vehicle reportedly achieved successful separation from its Minotaur 4 boosters high in the atmosphere.
However, nine minutes into the flight, the dart-shaped glider lost communication and never made it to its notional target, which had been set in the Pacific Ocean north of Kwajalein Atoll.
Initial DARPA analysis was that the loss of the vehicle might have resulted from its self-destruct apparatus, which could automatically terminate flight if it sensed any divergence from its programmed route, according to one defense consultant. Alternatively, any number of other operating failures might have led to the crash, according to officials.
The Hypersonic Test Vehicle-2 reportedly lacks a device that might have signaled activation of the self-destruct sequence, somewhat complicating the DARPA analysis.
"There does not appear to be a mechanism in there that would tell you whether it was self-destruction or not," said the consultant, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the ongoing failure review.
Eric Mazzacone, a DARPA spokesman, said the engineering-review board has been meeting since the end of May to scour "millions" of data points gathered during the flight test.
“Following senior-level [Pentagon] review of those findings, key observations may be released, subject to classification and export-control restrictions," he told Global Security Newswire today.
U.S. Strategic Command chief Gen. Kevin Chilton has said he wants to see the first Conventional Strike Missile fielded at Vandenberg by 2015 (see GSN, July 1, 2009). It would remain on alert, backed up by two spares, for potentially hitting a time-urgent target such as top terrorist leaders spotted at a hideout or a North Korean nuclear missile being readied for launch, according to defense officials.
The HTV-2 has a carbon-fiber aero shell that allows it thermal protection as the delta-wing vehicle glides on the edge of space towards its target. During the test, the vehicle was expected to fly roughly 5,700 kilometers in less than half an hour.
Lemnios would not say today whether the April disappointment is expected to delay the prompt-strike missile's deployment or to hike flight-test costs, which were projected last spring to reach or even surpass $500 million. He also declined to speculate whether plans for the next such HTV-2 flight, slated for March 2011, would be affected.
"I'm not going to make that determination until I see exactly what came out of the review board," said Lemnios, who is responsible for overseeing DARPA efforts.
Pentagon budget officials -- assembling their request for fiscal 2012 funding -- recently examined the possibility of splitting off the futuristic HTV-2 technology development effort from the Air Force-led Conventional Strike Missile program, according to defense sources. The White House is expected to submit the new budget to Congress next February.
If implemented, the idea would have been to allow the Air Force-led missile program to be fielded more quickly by pairing it with a less futuristic payload-delivery vehicle, available in the nearer term.
However, defense officials opted to defer a decision on the matter until after next year's flight test, these sources said.
Though Lemnios would not discuss program or budget specifics, he did describe the general thinking behind the HTV-2 effort.
"The risk that we put into those programs -- the risk level that we're willing to put into those investments -- is enormously high," he told reporters at the Defense Writers Group event. "The impact is also high."
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,562
- Reaction score
- 7,187
No funds for conventional Trident and some other Prompt Global Strike news from Global Security Newswire:
Senate Panel Again Cuts Funds for Conventional Trident Missile
Wednesday, Sept. 22, 2010
By Elaine M. Grossman
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee last week zeroed funding for Conventional Trident Modification, a proposed Defense Department program to allow a small number of the Navy's D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles to carry a non-nuclear payload (see GSN, May 21, 2009).
(Sep. 22) - A U.S. Trident 2 D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missile takes off in a 1987 flight test. A Senate panel last week eliminated funding for a Pentagon study about the implications of placing conventional armaments on some D-5 missiles (U.S. Defense Department photo).
For the new fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, the Obama administration had requested $10 million for a "global strike study" to determine "what surety, safety and ambiguity issues may exist" if nuclear weapon-carrying submarines "were outloaded with both conventional and nuclear payloads," according to a Navy budget document submitted to Capitol Hill in February.
The United States today maintains 14 "SSBN" nuclear-armed submarines. With two vessels in overhaul at any given time, the remaining 12 operational boats carry 288 Trident D-5 missiles, fitted with a total 1,152 nuclear warheads, according to nuclear analysts Robert Norris and Hans Kristensen.
Beginning several years ago, the Pentagon proposed equipping 24 of the Trident D-5 missiles with conventional warheads, and fielding the weapons aboard the same stealthy submarines that carry identical nuclear missiles.
The Senate panel noted in a press release last week that it had eliminated fiscal 2011 funds for the so-called Conventional Trident Modification, but it opted not to comment on the action in its report accompanying the appropriations bill.
The cut in funds for this budget line item has become almost an annual legislative ritual, thanks to Pentagon persistence in pursuing a conventional version of the Trident missile and the Senate appropriators' repeated refusals to fund the system (see GSN, Nov. 7, 2008; and Dec. 13, 2007). Modifications to the D-5's re-entry body would include a precision-guidance system and modified control surfaces to improve its accuracy.
Defense leaders have argued the technology could be useful for the "prompt global strike" mission, in which an attack might be carried out anywhere around the globe with just an hour's notice. Use of the weapon would be reserved for the most urgent targets, such as North Korean nuclear-missile launch preparations or a terrorist leader pinpointed at a safe house in Pakistan.
The Pentagon envisions using these niche weapons only in those instances in which the sole alternative would be launching a nuclear weapon.
Given the limited role of conventional prompt global strike, "it makes economic and technical sense to take advantage of the existing submarine infrastructure," said Linton Brooks, a retired naval officer with extensive diplomatic and nuclear-complex experience. "If the United States is to develop prompt global strike, the Conventional Trident Modification is the best way to do it."
Lawmakers have largely supported the emergence of the prompt global strike mission. However, they have time and again nixed the idea of developing or fielding a modified Trident to carry out such attacks.
Congress has warned that if a converted Trident were loaded onto a U.S. nuclear-armed submarine, Russia or China might misinterpret a conventional launch and trigger a nuclear war. Rather, lawmakers have urged the Pentagon to develop land-based weapon systems for conventional prompt global strike, such as the Air Force Conventional Strike Missile, which might be more effectively verified and tracked by foreign powers.
With lawmakers resistant to the Trident conversion option, U.S. Strategic Command chief Gen. Kevin Chilton in 2008 made the Conventional Strike Missile his pick for the first prompt global strike system to be deployed, perhaps as early as 2015 (see GSN, Sept. 3, 2008; and July 1, 2009).
Pentagon officials have estimated that the cost to test and field the Air Force missile -- which is to ride aboard a futuristic hypersonic glider -- could reach $500 million. Given the per-missile price tag of roughly $100 million, defense leaders imagine that just a single weapon would be put on alert at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., with two additional held in reserve (see GSN, March 15).
Advocates of the Trident option, though, have not given up hope that a submarine-based conventional missile would eventually be fielded. Brooks, for one, rejected the idea that the proposed Navy weapon could be destabilizing.
"Because submarines are mobile, they can be operated in a way that launches will not appear to be directed at Russia," he told Global Security Newswire in an e-mail response to questions. Brooks added that Russian military officers have assured him that such launches would not be misinterpreted if Washington provided an hour's advance notice of any prompt global strike attack against a third nation.
Kristensen, who heads the Federation of American Scientists' Nuclear Information Project, said it appears that Congress wants to focus research funds instead on ground-based alternatives to the modified Trident missile.
"Congress may still have serious doubts about mixing nuclear and conventional ballistic missiles on submarines," he told GSN. "The slow pace of getting approval to develop and deploy prompt global strike ballistic missiles over the past decade is a reminder that, while such weapons may be attractive to some, making the case that they're actually needed, affordable and essential for national security is quite another matter."
Navy budget materials indicate it would cost a total $20 million to complete the study on conventional Trident, assuming Congress gave the green light for the initial $10 million Navy allocation.
If both the House and Senate ultimately agree to fund the Navy request, an additional $10 million in "matching funds" to finish the study might be provided in 2011 by Defense Secretary Robert Gates' office, which oversees a consolidated account for prompt global strike, according to one industry consultant who asked not to be named.
However, last week's Senate committee action to deny the conventional Trident request is just the first of a number of funding steps. The House Appropriations Committee has yet to vote on its defense subcommittee's version of the funding bill, so it is not yet known whether that panel will take similar or contrary action on the Conventional Trident Modification.
Once each chamber passes its defense appropriations bill, the legislation must be reconciled in a House-Senate conference and be signed by the president before becoming law.
Fiscal 2011 begins in slightly more than a week. Congress is widely expected to draft a continuing resolution that would allow government work to continue, pending passage of appropriations bills for the full year.
Meanwhile, the Senate Appropriations Committee did opt to fully fund the multiservice account that bankrolls a number of service efforts to develop prompt global strike systems, including the Conventional Strike Missile.
The Obama administration requested $239.9 million for this combined account, which would be used in fiscal 2011 for experiments with both winged and cone-shaped strategic delivery vehicles, according to the Senate appropriations report.
However, following a failed flight test in April, developmental plans and schedules for the Conventional Strike Missile are in flux.
The missile system has relied on the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle-2 -- developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency -- to carry the weapon to target at Mach 20 speeds. During the scotched test, the dart-shaped glider lost communications with mission control nine minutes into its flight and fell into the Pacific Ocean.
The cause of the crash has not yet been released, but a senior defense official said last month a test report would be completed soon (see GSN, Aug. 19).
According to defense sources, plans for the next HTV-2 flight test could slip at least nine months, pushing its eventual fielding further into the future.
With details of the anticipated HTV-2 program changes not yet released, though, the Senate appropriations panel fenced nearly one-quarter of the $239.9 million in prompt global strike funds from Pentagon spending.
"Not more than $189 million may be obligated until the Department of Defense provides the congressional defense committees the details of the restructured program, to include scheduled development efforts and flight tests for each technology under consideration, solutions being considered for weaponization, and the associated costs to complete the development program for each technology being explored," the lawmakers' report states.
The panel also said that, beginning with the fiscal 2012 budget request to be delivered next February, the administration must submit separate line items for each of the programs to be funded for prompt global strike, including the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle-2, the Conventional Strike Missile and the Army's Advanced Hypersonic Weapon.
If this provision becomes law, it would effectively reverse congressional direction that since 2007 has allowed the defense secretary's staff to exercise significant discretion in allocating funds for different efforts from a single prompt global strike account.
Senate Panel Again Cuts Funds for Conventional Trident Missile
Wednesday, Sept. 22, 2010
By Elaine M. Grossman
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee last week zeroed funding for Conventional Trident Modification, a proposed Defense Department program to allow a small number of the Navy's D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missiles to carry a non-nuclear payload (see GSN, May 21, 2009).
(Sep. 22) - A U.S. Trident 2 D-5 submarine-launched ballistic missile takes off in a 1987 flight test. A Senate panel last week eliminated funding for a Pentagon study about the implications of placing conventional armaments on some D-5 missiles (U.S. Defense Department photo).
For the new fiscal year that begins Oct. 1, the Obama administration had requested $10 million for a "global strike study" to determine "what surety, safety and ambiguity issues may exist" if nuclear weapon-carrying submarines "were outloaded with both conventional and nuclear payloads," according to a Navy budget document submitted to Capitol Hill in February.
The United States today maintains 14 "SSBN" nuclear-armed submarines. With two vessels in overhaul at any given time, the remaining 12 operational boats carry 288 Trident D-5 missiles, fitted with a total 1,152 nuclear warheads, according to nuclear analysts Robert Norris and Hans Kristensen.
Beginning several years ago, the Pentagon proposed equipping 24 of the Trident D-5 missiles with conventional warheads, and fielding the weapons aboard the same stealthy submarines that carry identical nuclear missiles.
The Senate panel noted in a press release last week that it had eliminated fiscal 2011 funds for the so-called Conventional Trident Modification, but it opted not to comment on the action in its report accompanying the appropriations bill.
The cut in funds for this budget line item has become almost an annual legislative ritual, thanks to Pentagon persistence in pursuing a conventional version of the Trident missile and the Senate appropriators' repeated refusals to fund the system (see GSN, Nov. 7, 2008; and Dec. 13, 2007). Modifications to the D-5's re-entry body would include a precision-guidance system and modified control surfaces to improve its accuracy.
Defense leaders have argued the technology could be useful for the "prompt global strike" mission, in which an attack might be carried out anywhere around the globe with just an hour's notice. Use of the weapon would be reserved for the most urgent targets, such as North Korean nuclear-missile launch preparations or a terrorist leader pinpointed at a safe house in Pakistan.
The Pentagon envisions using these niche weapons only in those instances in which the sole alternative would be launching a nuclear weapon.
Given the limited role of conventional prompt global strike, "it makes economic and technical sense to take advantage of the existing submarine infrastructure," said Linton Brooks, a retired naval officer with extensive diplomatic and nuclear-complex experience. "If the United States is to develop prompt global strike, the Conventional Trident Modification is the best way to do it."
Lawmakers have largely supported the emergence of the prompt global strike mission. However, they have time and again nixed the idea of developing or fielding a modified Trident to carry out such attacks.
Congress has warned that if a converted Trident were loaded onto a U.S. nuclear-armed submarine, Russia or China might misinterpret a conventional launch and trigger a nuclear war. Rather, lawmakers have urged the Pentagon to develop land-based weapon systems for conventional prompt global strike, such as the Air Force Conventional Strike Missile, which might be more effectively verified and tracked by foreign powers.
With lawmakers resistant to the Trident conversion option, U.S. Strategic Command chief Gen. Kevin Chilton in 2008 made the Conventional Strike Missile his pick for the first prompt global strike system to be deployed, perhaps as early as 2015 (see GSN, Sept. 3, 2008; and July 1, 2009).
Pentagon officials have estimated that the cost to test and field the Air Force missile -- which is to ride aboard a futuristic hypersonic glider -- could reach $500 million. Given the per-missile price tag of roughly $100 million, defense leaders imagine that just a single weapon would be put on alert at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., with two additional held in reserve (see GSN, March 15).
Advocates of the Trident option, though, have not given up hope that a submarine-based conventional missile would eventually be fielded. Brooks, for one, rejected the idea that the proposed Navy weapon could be destabilizing.
"Because submarines are mobile, they can be operated in a way that launches will not appear to be directed at Russia," he told Global Security Newswire in an e-mail response to questions. Brooks added that Russian military officers have assured him that such launches would not be misinterpreted if Washington provided an hour's advance notice of any prompt global strike attack against a third nation.
Kristensen, who heads the Federation of American Scientists' Nuclear Information Project, said it appears that Congress wants to focus research funds instead on ground-based alternatives to the modified Trident missile.
"Congress may still have serious doubts about mixing nuclear and conventional ballistic missiles on submarines," he told GSN. "The slow pace of getting approval to develop and deploy prompt global strike ballistic missiles over the past decade is a reminder that, while such weapons may be attractive to some, making the case that they're actually needed, affordable and essential for national security is quite another matter."
Navy budget materials indicate it would cost a total $20 million to complete the study on conventional Trident, assuming Congress gave the green light for the initial $10 million Navy allocation.
If both the House and Senate ultimately agree to fund the Navy request, an additional $10 million in "matching funds" to finish the study might be provided in 2011 by Defense Secretary Robert Gates' office, which oversees a consolidated account for prompt global strike, according to one industry consultant who asked not to be named.
However, last week's Senate committee action to deny the conventional Trident request is just the first of a number of funding steps. The House Appropriations Committee has yet to vote on its defense subcommittee's version of the funding bill, so it is not yet known whether that panel will take similar or contrary action on the Conventional Trident Modification.
Once each chamber passes its defense appropriations bill, the legislation must be reconciled in a House-Senate conference and be signed by the president before becoming law.
Fiscal 2011 begins in slightly more than a week. Congress is widely expected to draft a continuing resolution that would allow government work to continue, pending passage of appropriations bills for the full year.
Meanwhile, the Senate Appropriations Committee did opt to fully fund the multiservice account that bankrolls a number of service efforts to develop prompt global strike systems, including the Conventional Strike Missile.
The Obama administration requested $239.9 million for this combined account, which would be used in fiscal 2011 for experiments with both winged and cone-shaped strategic delivery vehicles, according to the Senate appropriations report.
However, following a failed flight test in April, developmental plans and schedules for the Conventional Strike Missile are in flux.
The missile system has relied on the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle-2 -- developed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency -- to carry the weapon to target at Mach 20 speeds. During the scotched test, the dart-shaped glider lost communications with mission control nine minutes into its flight and fell into the Pacific Ocean.
The cause of the crash has not yet been released, but a senior defense official said last month a test report would be completed soon (see GSN, Aug. 19).
According to defense sources, plans for the next HTV-2 flight test could slip at least nine months, pushing its eventual fielding further into the future.
With details of the anticipated HTV-2 program changes not yet released, though, the Senate appropriations panel fenced nearly one-quarter of the $239.9 million in prompt global strike funds from Pentagon spending.
"Not more than $189 million may be obligated until the Department of Defense provides the congressional defense committees the details of the restructured program, to include scheduled development efforts and flight tests for each technology under consideration, solutions being considered for weaponization, and the associated costs to complete the development program for each technology being explored," the lawmakers' report states.
The panel also said that, beginning with the fiscal 2012 budget request to be delivered next February, the administration must submit separate line items for each of the programs to be funded for prompt global strike, including the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle-2, the Conventional Strike Missile and the Army's Advanced Hypersonic Weapon.
If this provision becomes law, it would effectively reverse congressional direction that since 2007 has allowed the defense secretary's staff to exercise significant discretion in allocating funds for different efforts from a single prompt global strike account.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,562
- Reaction score
- 7,187
Back to sub launched again?
Air Force Study Eyes Return To Sub-Based Prompt Global Strike Capability
As the Air Force continues to flesh out options for its long-range strike family of systems, service leaders are revisiting the idea of mounting conventional warheads onto sub-based nuclear missiles and folding them into the LRS concept, a senior service official said this week.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It will be interesting to see if any "study" is made public. Also, this along with the AirSea Battle concept reflects a growing USAF/USN level of co-operation which is a response to the "no more big ticket weapon systems" the future is COIN.
Air Force Study Eyes Return To Sub-Based Prompt Global Strike Capability
As the Air Force continues to flesh out options for its long-range strike family of systems, service leaders are revisiting the idea of mounting conventional warheads onto sub-based nuclear missiles and folding them into the LRS concept, a senior service official said this week.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
It will be interesting to see if any "study" is made public. Also, this along with the AirSea Battle concept reflects a growing USAF/USN level of co-operation which is a response to the "no more big ticket weapon systems" the future is COIN.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,562
- Reaction score
- 7,187
Reason for HTV-2 crash from Aviation Week
DARPA Says HTV-2 Exceeded Control Limits
Posted by Graham Warwick at 11/16/2010 3:39 PM CST
DARPA says its Lockheed Martin-built HTV-2 hypersonic test vehicle was lost soon after launch on April 22 because higher-than-predicted yaw, which coupled into roll, exceeded the capability of the glide vehicle's body-flap control surfaces.
The HTV-2 had been launched from Vandenberg on a planned 3,000nm hypersonic flight toward Kwajalein in the Pacific to demonstrate aerodynamic and structural technology for prompt global strike. Contact was lost 9min after launch, and after the dart-like glider had separated from its Minotaur IV Lite booster.
The HTV-2 was programmed to reenter the atmosphere and then pull up to begin its hypersonic glide to a splashdown off Kwajalein. At the time, DARPA said telemetry indicated the vehicle had achieved controlled flight at over Mach 20 before contract as lost.
Now the agency says a six-month investigation has concluded the "most probable cause of the HTV-2 flight anomaly was higher-than-predicted yaw, which coupled into roll thus exceeding the available control capability" at the angle of attack the vehicle was programmed to fly for the speed and altitude at that point in the flight. The vehicle began a slow roll divergence that continued until it triggered the autonomous flight termination system.
The analysis concluded "knowledge of several key aerodynamic paramaters in this flight regime was limited", DARPA says, and the review broad has concluded "no major changes to the vehicle or software are required...Engineers will adjust the vehicle's center of gravity, decrease the angle of attack flown and use the onboard reaction controol system to augment the vehicle flaps" before the second HTV-2 flies in late 2011.
DARPA Says HTV-2 Exceeded Control Limits
Posted by Graham Warwick at 11/16/2010 3:39 PM CST
DARPA says its Lockheed Martin-built HTV-2 hypersonic test vehicle was lost soon after launch on April 22 because higher-than-predicted yaw, which coupled into roll, exceeded the capability of the glide vehicle's body-flap control surfaces.
The HTV-2 had been launched from Vandenberg on a planned 3,000nm hypersonic flight toward Kwajalein in the Pacific to demonstrate aerodynamic and structural technology for prompt global strike. Contact was lost 9min after launch, and after the dart-like glider had separated from its Minotaur IV Lite booster.
The HTV-2 was programmed to reenter the atmosphere and then pull up to begin its hypersonic glide to a splashdown off Kwajalein. At the time, DARPA said telemetry indicated the vehicle had achieved controlled flight at over Mach 20 before contract as lost.
Now the agency says a six-month investigation has concluded the "most probable cause of the HTV-2 flight anomaly was higher-than-predicted yaw, which coupled into roll thus exceeding the available control capability" at the angle of attack the vehicle was programmed to fly for the speed and altitude at that point in the flight. The vehicle began a slow roll divergence that continued until it triggered the autonomous flight termination system.
The analysis concluded "knowledge of several key aerodynamic paramaters in this flight regime was limited", DARPA says, and the review broad has concluded "no major changes to the vehicle or software are required...Engineers will adjust the vehicle's center of gravity, decrease the angle of attack flown and use the onboard reaction controol system to augment the vehicle flaps" before the second HTV-2 flies in late 2011.
FutureSpaceTourist
ACCESS: Top Secret
- Joined
- 10 March 2010
- Messages
- 589
- Reaction score
- 30
The full (1 page) DARPA press release is at: http://www.darpa.mil/news/2010/HTV-2ERBReviewRelease.pdf.
It includes the following line: "The flight also demonstrated successfully the first ever use of an autonomous flight termination system" so not a failure after all
It includes the following line: "The flight also demonstrated successfully the first ever use of an autonomous flight termination system" so not a failure after all
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,562
- Reaction score
- 7,187
From Insidedefense.com:
DOD Eying New Investments In Prompt Global Strike For FY-12
The Defense Department is preparing to increase funding toward developing a conventional prompt global strike capability in its upcoming fiscal year 2012 budget plan, a senior Pentagon official said this week.
DOD Eying New Investments In Prompt Global Strike For FY-12
The Defense Department is preparing to increase funding toward developing a conventional prompt global strike capability in its upcoming fiscal year 2012 budget plan, a senior Pentagon official said this week.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,562
- Reaction score
- 7,187
Investments in Conventional Prompt Global Strike
Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance
Fact Sheet
December 13, 2010
(As compiled by the Department of Defense)
Key Point: The New START Treaty does not contain any constraints on current or planned U.S. conventional prompt global strike capability.
As part of the Administration’s efforts to strengthen deterrence and war-fighting capabilities, the United States is evaluating conventional prompt global strike (CPGS) capabilities to develop the capability to precisely strike time-sensitive, high value targets. Current Department of Defense (DoD) plans call for investing well over $1 billion for research and development of possible CPGS capabilities over the next five years (fiscal years 2011 to 2015).
DoD is currently conducting a study of long range strike options, including those that would provide CPGS capabilities. The results of this study will be reflected in the Department’s Fiscal Year 2012 (FY 2012) budget submission.
In August 2010, the Department submitted the Review of Fiscal Year 2010 Conventional Prompt Global Strike Concepts Report to Congress, which reviewed the CPGS concepts funded in the FY 2010 President’s budget request ($165.6 million). FY 2010 expenditures focused on the development and demonstration of technologies that could support a CPGS system deployed in the continental United States. (Submarine-based capabilities are also under consideration.) Current efforts include the following:
* Hypersonic Technology Vehicle-2 (HTV-2) Technology Experiments. DoD will invest $308 million from FY 2003 through FY 2011, for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop the HTV-2 and complete two flight experiments. Costs associated with updates resulting from the first flight last April have not been finalized.
* Conventional Strike Missile (CSM). DoD plans to invest $477 million from FY 2008 through FY 2013, for the Air Force to complete the CSM operational demonstration.
* Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW) Technology Experiment. DoD will invest $180 million from FY 2006 through FY 2011 for the Army to complete the AHW flight experiment.
The New START Treaty allows the United States to deploy CPGS systems, and does not in any way limit or constrain research, development, testing, and evaluation of such concepts and systems, which offer the prospect of striking any target in the world in less than an hour. Intercontinental ballistic missiles with a traditional trajectory would be accountable under the Treaty; however, the Treaty’s limits would accommodate any plans the United States might pursue during the life of this Treaty to deploy conventional warheads on ballistic missiles. Further, the United States made clear during the New START negotiations that we would not consider non-nuclear, long-range systems, which do not otherwise meet the definitions of the New START Treaty (such as boost-glide systems that do not fly a ballistic trajectory), to be accountable under the Treaty.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Bolding mine. Of course the key words are current and planned PGS systems. Obviously if the US simply puts conventional warheads on an ICBM (ceteris paribus) is will count against START totals and therefore restrict the number of total "nuclear" capable launchers left available for the deterrent mission.
Although the investment in these systems is welcome, the counting provision should be taken out of a strategic weapons treaty. It would be easy, IMHO, to say we will deploy conventional PGS missiles at certain locations and they will be open to 24/7/365 inspections to insure they are conventional.
Bureau of Arms Control, Verification and Compliance
Fact Sheet
December 13, 2010
(As compiled by the Department of Defense)
Key Point: The New START Treaty does not contain any constraints on current or planned U.S. conventional prompt global strike capability.
As part of the Administration’s efforts to strengthen deterrence and war-fighting capabilities, the United States is evaluating conventional prompt global strike (CPGS) capabilities to develop the capability to precisely strike time-sensitive, high value targets. Current Department of Defense (DoD) plans call for investing well over $1 billion for research and development of possible CPGS capabilities over the next five years (fiscal years 2011 to 2015).
DoD is currently conducting a study of long range strike options, including those that would provide CPGS capabilities. The results of this study will be reflected in the Department’s Fiscal Year 2012 (FY 2012) budget submission.
In August 2010, the Department submitted the Review of Fiscal Year 2010 Conventional Prompt Global Strike Concepts Report to Congress, which reviewed the CPGS concepts funded in the FY 2010 President’s budget request ($165.6 million). FY 2010 expenditures focused on the development and demonstration of technologies that could support a CPGS system deployed in the continental United States. (Submarine-based capabilities are also under consideration.) Current efforts include the following:
* Hypersonic Technology Vehicle-2 (HTV-2) Technology Experiments. DoD will invest $308 million from FY 2003 through FY 2011, for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to develop the HTV-2 and complete two flight experiments. Costs associated with updates resulting from the first flight last April have not been finalized.
* Conventional Strike Missile (CSM). DoD plans to invest $477 million from FY 2008 through FY 2013, for the Air Force to complete the CSM operational demonstration.
* Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW) Technology Experiment. DoD will invest $180 million from FY 2006 through FY 2011 for the Army to complete the AHW flight experiment.
The New START Treaty allows the United States to deploy CPGS systems, and does not in any way limit or constrain research, development, testing, and evaluation of such concepts and systems, which offer the prospect of striking any target in the world in less than an hour. Intercontinental ballistic missiles with a traditional trajectory would be accountable under the Treaty; however, the Treaty’s limits would accommodate any plans the United States might pursue during the life of this Treaty to deploy conventional warheads on ballistic missiles. Further, the United States made clear during the New START negotiations that we would not consider non-nuclear, long-range systems, which do not otherwise meet the definitions of the New START Treaty (such as boost-glide systems that do not fly a ballistic trajectory), to be accountable under the Treaty.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Bolding mine. Of course the key words are current and planned PGS systems. Obviously if the US simply puts conventional warheads on an ICBM (ceteris paribus) is will count against START totals and therefore restrict the number of total "nuclear" capable launchers left available for the deterrent mission.
Although the investment in these systems is welcome, the counting provision should be taken out of a strategic weapons treaty. It would be easy, IMHO, to say we will deploy conventional PGS missiles at certain locations and they will be open to 24/7/365 inspections to insure they are conventional.
- Joined
- 6 August 2007
- Messages
- 3,356
- Reaction score
- 3,489
The AHW flight demo is still proceeding, but it seems that the AHW Hypersonic Glide Body and Kill Vehicle are now candidate payloads for the AF Conventional Strike Missile. Interestingly enough, the CSM already has a RV, the Payload Delivery Vehicle, which has a warhead that has already been static fired several times. The Army vehicle is now positioned as an Alternative Payload Delivery Vehicle - there are hints that the AHW vehicle is much closer to a finished product than the Air Force PDV, even though it seems that the Air Force PDV is based on an existing design (HTV-1?).
An air launched AHW derived system would circumvent old START, but that doesn't seem to be on the drawing boards.
An air launched AHW derived system would circumvent old START, but that doesn't seem to be on the drawing boards.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,562
- Reaction score
- 7,187
quellish said:
Any dimensions available for the Conventional Strike Missile or is this going to be the generic name for any missile carrying a conventional warhead such as the Minotaur IV that launched the HTV-2?
- Joined
- 6 August 2007
- Messages
- 3,356
- Reaction score
- 3,489
bobbymike said:
"Integrated PDV vehicle with Minotaur IV Lite launch vehicle and conduct one operationally relevant land impact flight test demonstration"
"... finalize design concept for the CSM Payload Delivery Vehicle to include thermal protection materials, guidance systems, mission planning, and command and control; complete qualification of a Minotaur launch vehicle for a CPGS mission analysis of launch system infrastructure requirements utilizing other ballistic missile propulsion programs, and mature/demonstrate technologies associated the high speed demonstration of conventional munitions. The available resources for this sub-project will be utilized to procure the PDV, warhead and booster to support the planned CSM weaponized flight test."
I don't think it's set in stone that Minotaur IV Lite will be CSM, but that is what all the other components are being tested and validated against.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,562
- Reaction score
- 7,187
From Danger Room:
A few years back, the military came up with the bright idea of swapping out the nuclear warheads on some of America’s land- and sea-based ballistic missiles for conventional explosives, transforming city-obliterating rockets into so-called “Prompt Global Strike” systems capable of taking out terrorist targets anywhere in the world just hours from the word “go.”
There was just one problem: The “strike-anywhere” missile was a nightmare for diplomats and lawmakers. Upon launch, a non-nuclear ballistic missiles looks the same as a nuke to other nations’ radars. There was no way Russia, China or anyone else would know that America was firing a non-nuclear missile to take out a terrorist camp — as opposed to, say, starting World War III on a whim.
Proposals that the United States install special communications channels to alert nuclear powers in advance of any non-nuclear launch pretty much undermined the whole “prompt” aspect of the weapon.
Now the Air Force thinks it has a solution that makes everyone — Congress, the State Department and the Pentagon — happy. The flying branch wants to ditch the ballistic missile aspect of Prompt Global Strike and replace it with a hypersonic glider air-launched from a heavy bomber, like any of the Air Force’s current non-nuclear cruise missiles. That way nobody can mistake the weapon for a nuke.
Even though the prototype crashed during its first test flight last year, the Air Force is eying the Mach-20 Falcon Hypersonic Test Vehicle as the basis for the new strike missile. “Our focus is on boost-glide capabilities, including the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle concept,” Maj. Gen. David Scott said this week. “We have no plans for conventionally-armed sea-based missiles such as a [Navy] Conventional Trident modification or conventionally-armed ICBMs.”
The gliding missile has the extra advantage of fitting seamlessly into existing operations. The Pentagon hasn’t used non-nuclear ballistic missiles in many decades, but cruise-missile launches are routine. The only difference between an armed hypersonic glider and the Air Force’s existing Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile would be range: a B-52 carrying armed gliders could fire the missiles thousands of miles from their targets and still take them out in just minutes’ time.
As a modest proof-of-concept, the Air Force successfully test-launched its much smaller and less speedy X-51 hypersonic cruise missile, pictured, from a B-52 in May last year. For its part, the doomed HTV test in April, was not the complete wash it appeared to be at the time. In November, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency announced it had figured out what downed the glider — a flight-control “wobble” — and had prepared fixes for the next HTV test, slated for this summer.
The re-imagined Prompt Global Strike missile will complement the Air Force’s planned new stealth bomber, though it’s not clear the new bomber will actually carry the missile. Instead, the missile and the bomber will form what the Air Force describes as a “family of systems,” meant to preserve U.S. strike capability not only against terrorist targets, but also against well-defended potential enemies such as China.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This story is confusing to me. Its talks about the failed HTV-2 test but that was on a Peacekeeper (Minotaur IV) booster, is that not really a conventional ICBM. Does that mean they will call it a "ballistically launched glide weapon"? But they say the HTV-2 will complement the new bomber but not necessarily be launched from it?
The one additional comment I would make is that the DOD is trying to make the State Department happy (along with the politicians and others) The only way to make the current State Department happy would be total disarmament IMHO.
I was hoping that a conventional ICBM would help maintain the solid rocket, RV and warhead energetics industrial base as is looks like we won't see a new nuclear ICBM until after 2020. Daniel Goure of the Lexington Institute said prompt global strike would be a really good way to promote the development advanced missile technology with the development of a brand new missile.
Where is OBB to talk about Tribal Knowledge again. Are we twenty years away from losing the ability to produce advanced weapon systems in certain sectors?
A few years back, the military came up with the bright idea of swapping out the nuclear warheads on some of America’s land- and sea-based ballistic missiles for conventional explosives, transforming city-obliterating rockets into so-called “Prompt Global Strike” systems capable of taking out terrorist targets anywhere in the world just hours from the word “go.”
There was just one problem: The “strike-anywhere” missile was a nightmare for diplomats and lawmakers. Upon launch, a non-nuclear ballistic missiles looks the same as a nuke to other nations’ radars. There was no way Russia, China or anyone else would know that America was firing a non-nuclear missile to take out a terrorist camp — as opposed to, say, starting World War III on a whim.
Proposals that the United States install special communications channels to alert nuclear powers in advance of any non-nuclear launch pretty much undermined the whole “prompt” aspect of the weapon.
Now the Air Force thinks it has a solution that makes everyone — Congress, the State Department and the Pentagon — happy. The flying branch wants to ditch the ballistic missile aspect of Prompt Global Strike and replace it with a hypersonic glider air-launched from a heavy bomber, like any of the Air Force’s current non-nuclear cruise missiles. That way nobody can mistake the weapon for a nuke.
Even though the prototype crashed during its first test flight last year, the Air Force is eying the Mach-20 Falcon Hypersonic Test Vehicle as the basis for the new strike missile. “Our focus is on boost-glide capabilities, including the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle concept,” Maj. Gen. David Scott said this week. “We have no plans for conventionally-armed sea-based missiles such as a [Navy] Conventional Trident modification or conventionally-armed ICBMs.”
The gliding missile has the extra advantage of fitting seamlessly into existing operations. The Pentagon hasn’t used non-nuclear ballistic missiles in many decades, but cruise-missile launches are routine. The only difference between an armed hypersonic glider and the Air Force’s existing Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile would be range: a B-52 carrying armed gliders could fire the missiles thousands of miles from their targets and still take them out in just minutes’ time.
As a modest proof-of-concept, the Air Force successfully test-launched its much smaller and less speedy X-51 hypersonic cruise missile, pictured, from a B-52 in May last year. For its part, the doomed HTV test in April, was not the complete wash it appeared to be at the time. In November, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency announced it had figured out what downed the glider — a flight-control “wobble” — and had prepared fixes for the next HTV test, slated for this summer.
The re-imagined Prompt Global Strike missile will complement the Air Force’s planned new stealth bomber, though it’s not clear the new bomber will actually carry the missile. Instead, the missile and the bomber will form what the Air Force describes as a “family of systems,” meant to preserve U.S. strike capability not only against terrorist targets, but also against well-defended potential enemies such as China.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This story is confusing to me. Its talks about the failed HTV-2 test but that was on a Peacekeeper (Minotaur IV) booster, is that not really a conventional ICBM. Does that mean they will call it a "ballistically launched glide weapon"? But they say the HTV-2 will complement the new bomber but not necessarily be launched from it?
The one additional comment I would make is that the DOD is trying to make the State Department happy (along with the politicians and others) The only way to make the current State Department happy would be total disarmament IMHO.
I was hoping that a conventional ICBM would help maintain the solid rocket, RV and warhead energetics industrial base as is looks like we won't see a new nuclear ICBM until after 2020. Daniel Goure of the Lexington Institute said prompt global strike would be a really good way to promote the development advanced missile technology with the development of a brand new missile.
Where is OBB to talk about Tribal Knowledge again. Are we twenty years away from losing the ability to produce advanced weapon systems in certain sectors?
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,562
- Reaction score
- 7,187
From Defense News:
Conventional ICBM Still an Option: Schwartz
By DAVE MAJUMDAR
Published: 2 Mar 2011 17:25
Is the U.S. Air Force considering a conventionally tipped ICBM or not?
This morning, the service's top uniformed officer said yes - that such a missile, along with a hypersonic glider, were options for the service's Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) portion of its nascent Long Range Strike (LRS) family of systems. "We don't know yet. The less challenging solution to that demand signal clearly is a conventional ICBM application or [Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile]. There are complications with that, which are pretty self-evident," Gen. Norton Schwartz said at a March 2 conference hosted by Credit Suisse. "The hypervelocity test vehicle is another potential solution, which is much less mature obviously. We have another test coming up. We'll see how that one goes." Schwartz said the Air Force would focus on the long-range stealth bomber and stand-off cruise missile as part of an integrated family meant to defeat anti-access and area-denial threats. His comments came one day after Air Force science and technology director Stephen Walker told a Congressional hearing that a conventionally tipped ICBM was indeed an option.
But that followed conflicting statements by other Air Force generals. On Feb. 26, Maj. Gen. David Scott, who directs the Air Force's operational requirements, said, "We have no plans for conventionally armed sea-based missiles such as Conventional Trident Modification or conventionally armed ICBMs. Our focus is on boost-glide capabilities, including the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle concept." That followed a Feb. 17 interview in which Scott said, "Conventional Prompt Global Strike, which is the conventional Trident missile and it's the conventional strike missile; it's the things that we in the Air Force are working very closely with, with the hypersonic test vehicle that you've seen in the newspapers." At the Feb. 17 Air Force Association convention in Orlando, Fla., service vice chief Gen. Philip Breedlove had also said that a conventionally tipped missile such as a modified Trident was under consideration.
Analysts have called conventionally tipped ICBMs potentially very dangerous because it could be mistaken for a nuclear attack by other powers. "It's very expensive, and it's potentially very dangerous," said Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, Arlington, Va.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternate title of my last two posts, "Air Force Seeks to Confuse Everyone About Prompt Global Strike Plans".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plus DARPA's Arclight project - Standard Missile converted to surface to surface range 2000 km
The ArcLight program will demonstrate the capability to engage tactical, long range, time critical threats. The goal of ArcLight is to design, build and flight test a boost/glide vehicle capable of carrying a 100-200 pound payload over a 2,000 nautical miles range in approximately 30 minutes. The operational version of the boost/glide vehicle will be launched from a Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) compatible booster stack.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like the US to convert a helicopter carriers large deck space to carry hundreds of Arclight missiles (or even a larger missile like ATK's Forward Based Conventional Strike missile) along with possibly hundreds of missiles for air defense.
Conventional ICBM Still an Option: Schwartz
By DAVE MAJUMDAR
Published: 2 Mar 2011 17:25
Is the U.S. Air Force considering a conventionally tipped ICBM or not?
This morning, the service's top uniformed officer said yes - that such a missile, along with a hypersonic glider, were options for the service's Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) portion of its nascent Long Range Strike (LRS) family of systems. "We don't know yet. The less challenging solution to that demand signal clearly is a conventional ICBM application or [Submarine Launched Ballistic Missile]. There are complications with that, which are pretty self-evident," Gen. Norton Schwartz said at a March 2 conference hosted by Credit Suisse. "The hypervelocity test vehicle is another potential solution, which is much less mature obviously. We have another test coming up. We'll see how that one goes." Schwartz said the Air Force would focus on the long-range stealth bomber and stand-off cruise missile as part of an integrated family meant to defeat anti-access and area-denial threats. His comments came one day after Air Force science and technology director Stephen Walker told a Congressional hearing that a conventionally tipped ICBM was indeed an option.
But that followed conflicting statements by other Air Force generals. On Feb. 26, Maj. Gen. David Scott, who directs the Air Force's operational requirements, said, "We have no plans for conventionally armed sea-based missiles such as Conventional Trident Modification or conventionally armed ICBMs. Our focus is on boost-glide capabilities, including the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle concept." That followed a Feb. 17 interview in which Scott said, "Conventional Prompt Global Strike, which is the conventional Trident missile and it's the conventional strike missile; it's the things that we in the Air Force are working very closely with, with the hypersonic test vehicle that you've seen in the newspapers." At the Feb. 17 Air Force Association convention in Orlando, Fla., service vice chief Gen. Philip Breedlove had also said that a conventionally tipped missile such as a modified Trident was under consideration.
Analysts have called conventionally tipped ICBMs potentially very dangerous because it could be mistaken for a nuclear attack by other powers. "It's very expensive, and it's potentially very dangerous," said Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, Arlington, Va.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternate title of my last two posts, "Air Force Seeks to Confuse Everyone About Prompt Global Strike Plans".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plus DARPA's Arclight project - Standard Missile converted to surface to surface range 2000 km
The ArcLight program will demonstrate the capability to engage tactical, long range, time critical threats. The goal of ArcLight is to design, build and flight test a boost/glide vehicle capable of carrying a 100-200 pound payload over a 2,000 nautical miles range in approximately 30 minutes. The operational version of the boost/glide vehicle will be launched from a Mk 41 Vertical Launch System (VLS) compatible booster stack.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like the US to convert a helicopter carriers large deck space to carry hundreds of Arclight missiles (or even a larger missile like ATK's Forward Based Conventional Strike missile) along with possibly hundreds of missiles for air defense.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,562
- Reaction score
- 7,187
Interesting programs from Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory:
Net-Centric Prompt Global Strike Planner
APL has developed a prototype of a prompt global strike planning net-centric application that uses a service-oriented architecture. This prototype provided a conceptual framework for future planners and demonstrates the feasibility of this type of application. Building on this concept, the DoD has tasked the Laboratory to develop a prototype Conventional Prompt Global Strike mission planning and analysis tool and directed that this effort be responsive to the acquisition and intelligence communities in addition to the operations planners. This tool will demonstrate development of courses of action for multiple system concepts and will also return visual, qualitative, and quantitative information regarding system performance, such as range, trajectory, accuracy, probability of damage, overflight, and collateral damage. This capability will assist in developing and assessing operational concepts, technology implications, and system concept capabilities for conventional prompt global strike missions.
Conventional Strategic Global Strike
APL is assisting the Navy and Air Force in concept exploration studies for long-range, conventional (non-nuclear) strategic strikes. Examples include retrofitting an existing missile system with a conventional heavy penetrator and evaluating a two-stage ballistic missile with a highly maneuverable reentry vehicle (RV). Such an RV could improve accuracy, extend system range, and mitigate collateral damage effects from spent boosters. Testing these systems will be complicated by the enhanced aerodynamic performance of the RV. The Laboratory assisted the Navy in evaluating potential range sites for demonstration flights for these concsubmarineepts. Missile designs were developed and flights were simulated to evaluate the feasibility of achieving a land impact.
Emerging Missions and Alternate Payloads for SSGN Submarines
APL is assisting the U.S. Navy’s Strategic Systems Programs in the study, development, and fielding of SSGN Large Diameter Tube Payloads. The SSGN’s large payload capacity and persistent stealth enable a wide range of missions to be conducted. APL’s contribution includes conducting payload and payload integration trade studies, providing specialty and systems engineering support, and supporting land-based, in-water, and at-sea testing and evaluation efforts.
Net-Centric Prompt Global Strike Planner
APL has developed a prototype of a prompt global strike planning net-centric application that uses a service-oriented architecture. This prototype provided a conceptual framework for future planners and demonstrates the feasibility of this type of application. Building on this concept, the DoD has tasked the Laboratory to develop a prototype Conventional Prompt Global Strike mission planning and analysis tool and directed that this effort be responsive to the acquisition and intelligence communities in addition to the operations planners. This tool will demonstrate development of courses of action for multiple system concepts and will also return visual, qualitative, and quantitative information regarding system performance, such as range, trajectory, accuracy, probability of damage, overflight, and collateral damage. This capability will assist in developing and assessing operational concepts, technology implications, and system concept capabilities for conventional prompt global strike missions.
Conventional Strategic Global Strike
APL is assisting the Navy and Air Force in concept exploration studies for long-range, conventional (non-nuclear) strategic strikes. Examples include retrofitting an existing missile system with a conventional heavy penetrator and evaluating a two-stage ballistic missile with a highly maneuverable reentry vehicle (RV). Such an RV could improve accuracy, extend system range, and mitigate collateral damage effects from spent boosters. Testing these systems will be complicated by the enhanced aerodynamic performance of the RV. The Laboratory assisted the Navy in evaluating potential range sites for demonstration flights for these concsubmarineepts. Missile designs were developed and flights were simulated to evaluate the feasibility of achieving a land impact.
Emerging Missions and Alternate Payloads for SSGN Submarines
APL is assisting the U.S. Navy’s Strategic Systems Programs in the study, development, and fielding of SSGN Large Diameter Tube Payloads. The SSGN’s large payload capacity and persistent stealth enable a wide range of missions to be conducted. APL’s contribution includes conducting payload and payload integration trade studies, providing specialty and systems engineering support, and supporting land-based, in-water, and at-sea testing and evaluation efforts.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,562
- Reaction score
- 7,187
sferrin said:
The warhead size seems small but if you combine it with research being done with advanced nano-energetics some believe (NAS Report on Energetics) can pack 10X the punch of today's warheads you would have a nominal 1000 to 2000 pound bomb in a 100 to 200 pound package.
- Joined
- 24 January 2006
- Messages
- 1,297
- Reaction score
- 377
sferrin said:
Somebody's about 40 years too late to that party ;D
In reality a SSM variant of the Standard missile is a pretty smart way to go. No chance of it being confused with an ICBM or SLBM launch, and you've got tons of potential launch platforms already in service.
- Joined
- 21 April 2009
- Messages
- 13,562
- Reaction score
- 7,187
sferrin said:
I posted this in the "Future ICBM...." thread but your mention of speed reminded me of this quote:
"To be capable of exerting great influence on events ashore,” he says, “it would be helpful if a platform could do other than quickly export many kilograms of plutonium vast distances.” When a submarine-launched ballistic missile hits the ground at a “multi-Mach number,” he notes, it would “create a very wide, very deep crater — very close to the aim point.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What intrigues me is not the first part of the quote (which illustrates the power of speed in the kinetic energy equation) but the second part, "very close to the aim point"
It either intentionally or by accident tells how incredibly accurate our SLBM warheads are if the target can be withing the impact crater "without" any explosives.
Similar threads
-
-
New Plan for Sub Launched Conventional Ballistic Missile for PGS Mission?
- Started by bobbymike
- Replies: 0
-
Raytheon AGM-181 Long Range Stand Off Weapon (LRSO)
- Started by bobbymike
- Replies: 194
-
-
