US Hypersonics - Prompt Global Strike Capability

[sferrin]

Sometimes being in the crater is not enough. I remember a photo from back in the 80's in an Air Force Magazine article of a superhard silo that had undergone a test. The silo had been hardened to 50ksi and was shown protruding -intact- from the bottom of a crater formed by high explosives. Granted, maybe if you're close enough you can make the crater deep enough to tip the silo over if nothing else but still. . .

 

[bobbymike]

Sometimes being in the crater is not enough. I remember a photo from back in the 80's in an Air Force Magazine article of a superhard silo that had undergone a test. The silo had been hardened to 50ksi and was shown protruding -intact- from the bottom of a crater formed by high explosives. Granted, maybe if you're close enough you can make the crater deep enough to tip the silo over if nothing else but still. . .

But with accuracy like that you wouldn't need more than "tens of kilotons". We should research and build low yield earth penetrating nuclear warheads, we could call them Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators...........oh wait nevermind :-\

 

[quellish]

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.

"The E2 evaluation was conducted in October 2002 using a D5 missile. The modified Mk4 reentry body had an added flap actuator system for control and a GPS-aided Inertial Navigation System (INS). During a substantial part of reentry, GPS reception was lost owing to a plasma-induced blackout. Nevertheless, the flaps deployed and operated as predicted to provide three-axis flight control (roll, yaw, and pitch). Under flap control, the reentry body (RB; see footnote 5, above) was able to turn to its target, and guidance and control were sufficient to steer the RB to the target within several meters of the onboard navigation solution. In other words, the RB came within several meters of where the navigation system calculated that the target was located"

The E2 and LETB flight tests had inert warheads and had a CEP about that of a JDAM.
More interesting is what was proposed for CTM-2. Interesting little UAV stuffed in there.

 

[sferrin]

A 6000lb penetrator for 2500nm is nothing to sneeze at.

 

[SOC]

Who got there first and with what?

Arc Light? B-52s? Vietnam? Maybe my humor needs work! ;D

 

[quellish]

A 6000lb penetrator for 2500nm is nothing to sneeze at.

The largest (total) payload for CPGS I have heard of is 2000lb.

 

[sferrin]

A 6000lb penetrator for 2500nm is nothing to sneeze at.

The largest (total) payload for CPGS I have heard of is 2000lb.

Look at the bottom pic you posted.

 

[sferrin]

Who got there first and with what?

Arc Light? B-52s? Vietnam? Maybe my humor needs work! ;D

That's definitely a groaner. ;D

 

[bobbymike]

quellish - Is there a report that goes with those two images you posted up the thread?

 

[bobbymike]

Pentagon Revises Prompt Global Strike Effort
Thursday, April 7, 2011

The U.S. Defense Department has elected not to incorporate standard ballistic missile system technology in the development of its conventional "prompt global strike" initiative, Arms Control Today reported in its April issue (see GSN, March 24). The White House alerted Congress to the decision in February. The Pentagon "at present has no plans to develop or field" ICBMs or submarine-launched ballistic missiles that would be tipped with conventional warheads and delivered "with traditional ballistic trajectories," states a Senate-mandated White House report. The possibility that ballistic missile technology would be used in the Pentagon effort to develop a non-nuclear alternative for quickly eliminating threats such as a WMD stockpile or a missile being readied for launch caused serious concern among members of Congress and in Russia. Critics worried that a U.S. launch of conventionally armed ICBM could be misinterpreted as an atomic attack, potentially resulting in a nuclear response from another nation.

The Pentagon has said it plans to maintain research into "boost-glide" technology that has a nonballistic flight path, reducing the chances that someone would misinterpret the weapon as a nuclear missile. Boost-glide technology employs nonstandard ballistic missiles to propel into space delivery systems that proceed to five times the speed of sound for more than 50 percent of their flight. Washington believes that these weapons could be identifiable to the Russians as non-nuclear. "[The] basing, launch signature, and flight trajectory (of these systems) are distinctly different from that of any deployed nuclear-armed U.S. strategic ballistic missile," the Obama administration document reads. The Defense Department is interested in acquiring a conventional prompt strike ability as the only weapons the United States currently possesses that can strike a target anywhere in the world in under 60 minutes are nuclear-armed ICBMs.

Th Bush White House had suggested fixing non-nuclear warheads to submarine-carried Trident ballistic missiles. However, congressional lawmakers stymied that effort due to worries that Moscow could mistake a conventional SLBM firing as a nuclear attack. Kremlin officials argue that any long-range weapon that could be used to strike Russian nuclear assets ought to be categorized as strategic. In the New START nuclear arms control talks, Moscow at first tried to prohibit the attachment of conventional warheads on fielded ballistic missiles. Obama administration negotiators, though dismissed the idea. The two sides instead agreed to include language in the new accord that says they are "mindful of the impact of conventionally armed ICBMs and SLBMs on strategic stability." The boost-glide weapons would likely be fielded on U.S. coastal installations such as Vandenberg Air Force Base in California or Cape Canaveral in Florida. As the Russian military is "capable of monitoring U.S. ICBM fields, and possibly (SLBM) deployment areas," according to the Obama report, Moscow could ascertain that no nuclear launch had taken place. Additionally, each missile class has a unique infrared identifier that would enable Russia to distinguish between a Trident ballistic missile and a missile used as a boost glide vehicle, the report says.

Pentagon officials are researching three boost-glide alternatives: the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2, the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, and the Conventional Strike Missile, according to Arms Control Today. The Defense Department for this fiscal year has sought $240 million for a conventional strike effort that encompasses the three alternatives. The Pentagon expects to spend roughly $2 billion from 2011 to 2016 for research and development of these options (Tom Collina, Arms Control Today, April 2011).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be interesting if they developed a very heavy lift missile that could carry substantial payload global distances. If you are relying on kinetic energy or conventional explosives than having multiple warheads would make more sense. This would invigorate the solid rocket industrial base and other key technology industries.

 

[quellish]

It would be interesting if they developed a very heavy lift missile that could carry substantial payload global distances. If you are relying on kinetic energy or conventional explosives than having multiple warheads would make more sense. This would invigorate the solid rocket industrial base and other key technology industries.

What USAF wanted to do was take HTV-1 and use it as a delivery RV that would deploy standard conventional munitions - CBUs, GBUs, SDBs, LOCAAS, etc. There are some indications that after HTV-1 was cancelled it lived on in another program. Interestingly enough, the CSM flight demonstration was to include a Payload Delivery Vehicle (RV) that had a "proven" design.

As far as boost glide weapons.... AHW is the only thing on the horizon that can fly the trajectories being proposed (using a STARS booster). AHW is somewhat derived from SWERVE.

 

[quellish]

"The long thin rod warhead reentry physics phenomenology has seen limited experimental testing. The Navy performed a hypersonic rod experiment in 1993 flying 3 long (36” - 43"), thin (1” to 1 1/2"
tungsten rods on a D-5 warhead station. The missile was flown to a range of 4,000 nmi. Two of the rods used a carbon/carbon nose tip design with a carbon sleeve around the forward portion of the tungsten rod. One rod used a bare tungsten nose tip. One rod clearly impacted the target area at a velocity of approximately 14,000 ft/sec. One clearly failed to impact and the third was uncertain. The one that failed is thought to have been the bare tungsten nose rod as would be expected. Target impact accuracy was not part of this test. These results provide an initial indication that long thin rods can successfully transit the atmosphere at hypervelocities (velocities>l0,000 ft/sec) and impact the earth. This is an important result for both these concepts as well as the space delivered kinetic energy weapon described later in this report."

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA433762

 

[bobbymike]

Sorry but I just have to say I love this site. I don't write it enough but thanks to members like quellish, Skybolt, OBB, SOC, sferrin, flateric and many others. You guys have doubled my knowledge of the different technologies I'm interested in

 

[sferrin]

quellish - Is there a report that goes with those two images you posted up the thread?

Actually there is. I was trying to find the Trident bus for Flateric and I saw one of those pics go by in a doc I was looking at.

You can download the PDF for free right here:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12061

 

[bobbymike]

House Committee Slashes Conventional "Global Strike" Funds
Thursday, June 16, 2011 By Elaine M. Grossman

Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. House Appropriations Committee on Tuesday recommended a nearly 50 percent cut in funding for the development of conventionally armed, fast-strike weapons for the upcoming budget year (see GSN, June 10). If the panel's mark-up of the fiscal 2012 defense spending bill eventually makes its way into law, funds for the so-called "conventional prompt global strike" effort would total $104.8 million, a significant drop from the Obama administration's $204.8 million request. Under the effort, the Defense Department is developing a number of different attack weapon technologies that could eventually be capable of hitting targets halfway around the world with less than an hour's notice. Pentagon officials say a small number of these conventional arms are necessary as an alternative to using high-speed nuclear weapons in instances in which a surprise threat emerges thousands of miles away that must be struck rapidly, but where there are no U.S. aircraft or ships stationed nearby. This might include a North Korean ballistic missile being readied for launch or a terrorist leader spotted while on the move, defense officials explain.

The first such system to be fielded could be an Air Force Conventional Strike Missile, which would initially launch like a ballistic missile but then be capable of maneuvering to target at speeds exceeding Mach 5. An initial flight test of a key component of the missile -- a "hypersonic technology vehicle" -- ended in failure in April 2010 (see GSN, Aug. 19, 2010). A second airborne trial of the vehicle is slated for this August and a more advanced version is expected to undergo a flight test in fiscal 2012. House panel members moved to enact the $100 million cutback in the program after searching for savings throughout the defense budget, a committee aide told Global Security Newswire on Wednesday. The funds were reallocated toward ongoing military operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere, as well as to "more important, higher priority programs," the staffer said. The congressional aide spoke on condition of not being named, lacking authority to address the issue publicly. A House Appropriations report on the new legislation did not offer an explanation for the reduction. The draft decrease in global strike funds is part of the committee's $530 billion appropriations measure for nonemergency defense spending in the coming fiscal year, which begins on October 1. The proposed package cuts $9 billion from President Obama's request, but offers a $17 billion increase over 2011 defense budget figures.

The appropriations legislation is expected to go to a House floor vote as early as next week. It follows the chamber's action late last month to authorize 2012 defense expenditures. Typically authorization bills deal with policy and programmatic matters, while appropriations legislation is necessary for the government to spend funds. The House Armed Services Committee's defense authorization bill, which passed in a 322-96 floor vote on May 26, recommended a small decrease in conventional prompt global strike funds. Trimming $25 million from the administration's global strike request, this House panel also issued a defense authorization report challenging the Pentagon's development strategy for the weapon systems. House members lauded the Defense Department for the "innovation and scientific discovery" associated with developing the Conventional Strike Missile, but said they were "also concerned about pursuing a weaponized missile system, or any material development decision, before demonstrating that the technology is feasible."

Defense officials want the Air Force missile effort to undergo a critical design review in 2012, a crucial step toward putting the so-called "boost-glide" weapon through the paces of a full operational demonstration. Bugs yet to be worked out in the cutting-edge technology effort include finding ways to prevent the weapon system from burning up as it zooms through the upper atmosphere, as well as developing a guidance system that can control the apparatus at such high speeds. Surmounting such steep technical challenges is not expected to come cheap. Air Force officials have estimated that the cost to conduct two full demonstrations of the first non-nuclear global strike missile could reach $500 million (see GSN, March 15, 2010).

The price tag for procuring three Conventional Strike Missiles -- one to put on alert and another two for back-up -- could be as high as $300 million, according to Defense officials (see GSN, Nov. 26, 2008). The initial fielding date has slipped from 2015 to possibly as late as 2017, according to service officials. Lawmakers last month raised the idea of finding cheaper and easier alternatives to the Conventional Strike Missile. "The committee is concerned about the affordability of [conventional prompt global strike] given the current budgetary environment," the House defense authorization report states. "Based on briefings by the [Defense] Department, the committee is aware of other potential conventional long-range strike capabilities that may be lower cost, carry less technical risk, and provide a capability sooner" than the Conventional Strike Missile, the report reads.

The panel said it "encourages a broader examination" of the alternatives for undertaking the long-range, fast-attack mission. The Defense Department has already begun to explore other, potentially more cost-effective options for prompt global strike that might be available in the near term, said a second House aide, who also requested anonymity. Debate is simmering inside the Pentagon over how best to pursue the mission, spurred by those "who don't want to put all their eggs in the HTV basket," said the staffer, referring to the futuristic hypersonic technology vehicle. The Senate Armed Services Committee is marking up its version of the 2012 defense authorization bill this week in closed session. That chamber's Appropriations Committee will take its stab at next year's defense funding bill after that. Once these two types of defense spending bills have passed in both chambers, lawmakers from the House and Senate will meet in conferences to hash out a single authorization bill and a single appropriations bill. The resulting legislation is then sent to the president for his signature or veto. During the current fiscal year, the Pentagon has opted to allocate the lion's share of its $239.9 million global strike budget on the Air Force hypersonic glide concept, spending $147 million to develop and demonstrate the technology, according to one Defense report.

The remainder is being spent on an Army effort to develop an alternative delivery vehicle, re-entry system and warhead; the development of a test range; and defense-wide studies on conventional prompt global strike. The Senate Appropriations Committee last September called on the administration to break down its lump-sum funding request for global strike into these different types of expenditures, beginning with the fiscal 2012 budget, but the Pentagon has not done so. Defense officials said they have not yet determined how they would split the 2012 funding, because such a decision is to be based on the results of this year's flight experiments. In its recent report, the House Armed Services Committee mentioned that it anticipates there will be some excess funds left unspent from fiscal 2011 appropriations for prompt global strike, and those could dollars could help make up for 2012 reductions.

Despite Pentagon descriptions of prompt global strike work as focusing on the Air Force and Army efforts, it appears that the Navy continues to hone a submarine-launched concept for the mission that has been repeatedly rejected by Congress. Navy budget documents for fiscal 2012 submitted to Congress show that the service this year is spending $10 million to study how a conventionally armed missile could be launched from nuclear ballistic-missile submarines. Lawmakers have moved to terminate Navy work on the so-called Conventional Trident Modification year after year, citing concerns that Russia or China might mistake the launch of a non-nuclear D-5 missile for the start of an atomic war, potentially setting the stage for a dangerous international crisis (see GSN, Sept. 22, 2010). Nonetheless, conceptual work on converting a number of Trident missiles for a conventional mission appears to proceed. Next year "a study on SSBN-based conventional prompt global strike options will be completed to address safety, security and surety issues, along with ambiguity issues as they relate to various sea-based designs," one Navy budget document states.

The service in 2012 hopes to estimate procurement costs for conventional Trident designs and lay out a possible acquisition schedule for the controversial system, according to the budget report. This information "is required to better understand the capabilities that could be delivered from naval platforms," the service states. Advocates of exploring alternatives to a conventional version of the submarine-launched missile, such as the Air Force Conventional Strike Missile, argue it would be better to field a weapon whose launch could not be mistaken for the onset of a nuclear war. The Conventional Strike Missile and similar long-range weapons could be made verifiable by foreign inspectors or spy satellites, and would follow a flight trajectory noticeably distinct from nuclear-tipped sea-launched ballistic missiles or ICBMs, according to advocates.
======================================================================
Taken black or mostly already there? (Hopefully)

 

[bobbymike]

Pentagon Readies Competition for "Global-Strike" Weapon Friday, June 24, 2011 By Elaine M. Grossman
Global Security NewswireWASHINGTON -- The U.S. Air Force is taking initial steps to launch a defense-industry competition for building a new missile capable of flying at hypersonic speeds and attacking targets anywhere around the world within 60 minutes of launch (see GSN, June 16).


The Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center on May 31 solicited information from defense contractors on the technologies they might propose using for the service's future Conventional Strike Missile. The service "desires to understand the concepts, architectures and designs that will provide the capability to strike globally, precisely and rapidly" using non-nuclear weapons against high-priority, "time-sensitive targets," the Air Force said in a formal "request for information" posted online. Incoming Defense Secretary Leon Panetta recently described the Conventional Strike Missile and other potential "conventional prompt global strike" weapons as "valuable" alternatives to launching long-range, nuclear-armed ballistic missiles against urgent targets. They would be most useful "in situations where a fleeting, serious threat was located in a region not readily accessible by other means," he told Congress. Military brass have said a small number of such weapons are needed in rare instances when, for example, a North Korean ballistic missile is being prepared for launch or a terrorist is spotted at a faraway safe house, and no U.S. warships or aircraft are situated nearby. A potentially key component of the new missile -- Lockheed Martin's Hypersonic Technology Vehicle-2 -- has experienced repeated developmental delays over the past few years, culminating in a flight demonstration failure in April 2010 (see GSN, Aug. 19, 2010).


Another test of the HTV-2 prototype -- a dart-like glider that would launch aboard rocket boosters, zoom through the upper atmosphere and careen into target at speeds exceeding Mach 5 -- is slated for August. That is to be followed up by a more complex flight test in fiscal 2012, according to defense sources. For the past several years, Lockheed Martin has been retained on a sole-source contract for this research and development work. When it comes to producing a deployable missile, though, the Pentagon expects to open up the program to potential competitors. Other big military contractors -- to include Boeing and Northrop Grumman -- are widely expected to propose alternative hypersonic technologies to compete against Lockheed Martin to build such a strike system.


The House Armed Services Committee last month issued a defense spending report that encourages the Pentagon to explore an array of solutions for the fast-attack mission. Lawmakers are seeking to reduce costs, decrease the risk of technological challenges, and offer a military capability sooner -- before a top-level Pentagon "critical design review" is conducted next year, according to the fiscal 2012 defense authorization report. Three days after the House panel issued this guidance, Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter wrote to key Armed Services Committee members to offer assurances he would open the conventional strike effort to the commercial market, but only after technological progress in the challenging mission area could be proven, according to the independent weekly Inside the Pentagon. "It is my intent to promote competition in all areas of [conventional prompt global strike] acquisition," Carter's May 20 letter reportedly states. "However, the timing for introduction of competition is critical and will be based on matured technology demonstrated by flight tests." An initial Conventional Strike Missile capability could be ready for fielding around 2020, according to industry officials interviewed this week. The Air Force by press time was unable to confirm the projected deployment date, which apparently has slipped from a previous fielding estimate of 2017 (see GSN, March 15, 2010). Just three years ago, the missile development effort was put on a fast track for early deployment by 2012, a goal that gradually evaporated as technical challenges arose (see GSN, Sept. 3, 2008). A rudimentary capability in the form of a single missile was to be put on alert at Vandenberg Air Force Base., Calif., with two backup systems held in reserve.


Current plans call for several missiles to ultimately be fielded -- perhaps three to five, according to one industry source -- but quantities would be capped because of the system's high cost and niche military mission. Early estimates were that each operational test of the technology could cost $250 million, and the first deployable missile could require $100 million to procure. "The Air Force is particularly interested in cost-reduction ideas" that could lead to an "affordable" Conventional Strike Missile, the service said in its new industry solicitation. For now, the Air Force is leaving open its options for the missile's propulsion system and the weapons it delivers.


The service will entertain "concepts involving new boosters, both solid and liquid, and a reusable booster system," it said. In testing, prototypes of the Conventional Strike Missile are using a so-called "Minotaur 4" propulsion system for ballistic launch, powered by retired ICBM boosters. More than half of the flight trajectory, the Air Force said, must be nonballistic -- meaning that it departs from the arc-shaped path of traditional long-range missiles -- helping distinguish the boost-glide system's launch from that of a nuclear-armed ICBM. A number of U.S. lawmakers and Russian leaders have warned against building conventionally armed ballistic missiles that, when fired, could be mistaken for the onset of an atomic war. The service is also "open to the use of dispense or nondispense concepts for the delivery of payloads to the target," according to the document. Whether the weapon will feature a single projectile or release submunitions will largely depend on the kinds of targets the Pentagon seeks to attack, industry officials say. For example, if the missile is to go after an adversary's deeply buried command center, a penetrating warhead could be necessary; alternatively, the missile might deliver off-the-shelf precision-guided munitions for striking above-ground structures or vehicles. Industry responses to the Air Force request for information are to be in the form of a "white paper" and a briefing -- lasting no longer than two hours, the service advised -- and are due by July 28.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Love to see a large heavy lift solid propellant missile able to carry a large conventional payload.

 

[bobbymike]

The Defense Department needs new weapons like the Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) capability despite the tight fiscal environment, a top military official said.
"I still think there is a need for Conventional Prompt Global Strike capability," said U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM) chief, Air Force Gen. Gen. C. Robert Kehler during a teleconference with reporters on Aug. 3.
The CPGS program would be used to hit a handful of extremely valuable, fleeting targets anywhere in the globe in less than an hour. The only weapons that the U.S. currently has in its arsenal to hit such fleeting targets around the globe are nuclear-tipped ballistic missiles, Kehler said.

"That's not a good position to be in," he said. "We would like to have the capability to be able to go after a time-critical target in a very short amount of time with a conventional warhead."
The implications of not being able to do so will depend on the situation, Kehler said, but the concept would be a valuable tool for national leaders.
"I believe that need will remain. What I can't predict is in the overall budget outcome is how we might have to prioritize at the end of the day."
Kehler said he does not know what the impact of the new debt ceiling deal reached between the Congress and the executive branch will mean for American strategic arsenal. He stressed, however, the need to avoid creating a "hollow force" as budgets come down.
Kehler noted that the previous consensus based on the nuclear posture review and the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) called for sustaining and modernizing the nuclear triad of bombers, ICBMs, and submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBM).
"That's a viewpoint I still believe is appropriate," Kehler said.
The most critical need, according to Kehler, is to modernize the "weapons complex" that builds and sustains the U.S. nuclear arsenal. The weapons complex had been underfunded in previous years, he said.
However, Kehler said the U.S. also needs to modernize its nuclear forces. The recapitalization is structured sequentially, with the need to buy new replacement ballistic missile submarines to replace existing vessels coming first. The second item in the sequence is buying the Air Force's new bomber, Kehler said.
Subsequently, the U.S. also has to look at what replaces the existing Minuteman III ballistic missile arsenal. An analysis of alternatives is already underway, Kehler said.
CPGS, Kehler said, would come somewhere within the midst of those other priorities. "It will be an interesting issue for us, I believe, to balance that against of these other needs," he said.

 

[bobbymike]

U.S. Army to Test “Global Strike” Technology This Week
Monday, Nov. 14, 2011 By Martin Matishak
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Army on Wednesday will test missile technology that could eventually be incorporated into the development a conventional "prompt global strike" weapon, according to Defense Department officials (see GSN, Dec. 14, 2010).


Army Space and Missile Defense Command and Army Forces Strategic Command will conduct a flight test of the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, which is to use an advanced-technology glide body built to endure high-speed flight in the upper atmosphere en route to a target.


"This test is designed to collect data on hypersonic boost-glide technologies and test-range performance for long-range atmospheric flight," Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. Melinda Morgan told Global Security Newswire last week by e-mail.


She said the test scenario would focus on "flight performance of aerodynamics; navigation, guidance, and control; and thermal protection technologies."


The test vehicle is slated to be launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility on the island of Kauai, Hawaii, and is to fly to the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site, located more than 2,000 miles southwest on the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands.


The launch had been slated to take place on Tuesday but was delayed one day "due to scheduling conflicts with other events in the Pacific," according to Morgan, who did not elaborate.


The data gleaned from the test will be used by the Defense Department to develop future capabilities for conventional prompt global strike, she told GSN.


The Pentagon is interested in developing a nonnuclear, prompt-strike capability to attack a target anywhere around the world with just an hour's notice. This type of weapon might be used in the event that U.S. naval vessels or land-based aircraft are not located close enough to strike a target under urgent conditions, such as prior to an impending North Korean missile launch.


AHW technologies, if proven successful, might be incorporated into the Air Force Conventional Strike Missile, which could be the first such prompt-attack capability to be fielded (see GSN, June 24).

 

[quellish]

http://www.govsupport.us/ahw/Docs/AHW%20Program%20FEA--30Jun11.pdf

The part people are probably mostly interested in:

 

[sferrin]

Anybody care to place a bet?

 

[bobbymike]

Anybody care to place a bet?

Will this tell us who has the best engineers, Army, Air Force or DARPA?

 

[quellish]

Will this tell us who has the best engineers, Army, Air Force or DARPA?

Sandia is heavily involved in AHW, and the design leverages their experience with SWERVE and other vehicles.

From: http://www.smdc.army.mil/Contracts/D3I/D3I-IndustryDayBriefing1Mar2011v1.pdf

AHW Mission Statement:
"Support the Test and Warfighter Solutions Center Mission Objectives in the design, development, and flight test of the Hypersonic Glide Body, based on existing technologies
derived from the Sandia Winged Energetic Reentry Vehicle Experiment (SWERVE), the Tactical Missile System – Penetrator (TACMS-P), and the Strategic Target System (STARS), to demonstrate a possible solution to the Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) requirement"

 

[jjnodice]

Looks like they had a successful test this morning:

http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=14920

Congrats to the Sandia and US Army team!

 

[sferrin]

Sweet! Now let's hope the X-51 and HTV2 teams can get their problems figured out.

 

[bobbymike]

YAAAAAAA!!!! Awesome likes me some Prompt Global Strike ;D Correct me if I am wrong but didn't Sandia work on early MaRV concepts?

Still think the US should build a new missile to use with both PGS and as a MMIII replacement, maybe but not likely.

 

[jjnodice]

Still think the US should build a new missile to use with both PGS and as a MMIII replacement, maybe but not likely.

If they can get the Navy to sign on to it for Trident II replacements you could have a "Joint Strike Missile" program...

 

[bobbymike]

Still think the US should build a new missile to use with both PGS and as a MMIII replacement, maybe but not likely.

If they can get the Navy to sign on to it for Trident II replacements you could have a "Joint Strike Missile" program...

Maybe that will be the future?

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/10/21/a-joint-navy-air-force-ballistic-missile/

 

[AAAdrone]

Another joint program...yawn.

On the serious side, I am glad the test was successful. Prompt Global strike is an idea that REALLY needs to get off the ground for the US to maintain military dominance by being able to strike time-sensitive targets that would otherwise be IMPOSSIBLE to get to in time otherwise. The government's already canceled too many programs. They MUST keep this one.

 

[sferrin]

I'm puzzled why it's the Army running this program. The last long range weapon they had was the nuclear armed Pershing II of 20 years ago. How would they deploy a system like this?

 

[TomS]

There seems to be essentially an internal competition between the Air Force (Conventional Strike Missile) and Army (Advanced hypersonic Weapon), funded by DoD's Propt Global Strike Weapon program. The Navy, of course, got shut down on Conventional Trident, and Congress appears dead set on making sure they don't get near the concept ever again.

http://www.spacenews.com/military/042610darpa-loses-contact-with-hypersonic-vehicle.html

The Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center is leading one development program called the Conventional Strike Missile. In addition, the Air Force will pick up where DARPA leaves off with HTV-2. In 2008 the service tapped Lockheed Martin to build a third HTV-2 aircraft that will carry a conventional weapon in a flight test......
The Army Space and Missile Defense Command is leading a competing effort called the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, which also would use a hypersonic glider to deliver a conventional payload, but would have a shorter range than HTV-2 and thus have to be forward-deployed. The Advanced Hypersonic Weapon has not yet been flight tested, and Army spokesman John Cummings could not provide any details about the test plan.

Funding for the Army program is at least partially a Congressional mandate starting back around 2006, so it might be a pork barrel project made good. There's a brief history of the program in a CRS study from earlier this year:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R41464.pdf

Army Advanced Hypersonic Weapon

The Army is also developing a hypersonic glide vehicle, known as the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW). Like the HTV-2, the AHW would use a hypersonic glider to deliver a conventional payload, but would have a shorter range than HTV-2 and thus have to be forward deployed. It also would be based on a conical design, with winglets, rather than on the winged design of the HTV-2. Upon nearing a target, the weapon would be able to maneuver to avoid flying over third party nations, and would home in on target using precision guidance system. The Army has not yet conducted a flight test of the AHW. When it is tested, it is to launch from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii, using the Strategic Targets System (STARS) booster stack, which is derived from the Navy’s Poseidon ballistic missile. As was the case with the HTV-2, its flight is to take it to a target near Kwajalein Atoll.

Congress appropriated $1.5 million for the Army’s hypersonic glide body, or advanced hypersonic weapon in FY2006, and added $8.9 million in FY2007.70 DOD allocated $29 million of the combined fund for CPGS to the Army’s program in FY2008, $13.9 million in FY2009, and $46.9 million in FY2010. It has requested an additional $69 million for FY2011. DOD has indicated that this program is a “risk mitigation effort in support of the Air Force CPGS project” and is intended to “develop and demonstrate the capability of an Alternative Payload Delivery Vehicle (APDV) through a two-flight test schedule.” Current plans expect a flight test to occur in 2011.

 

[jjnodice]

I'm puzzled why it's the Army running this program. The last long range weapon they had was the nuclear armed Pershing II of 20 years ago. How would they deploy a system like this?

The Army concept is shorter range than the USAF? More like an IRBM than ICBM? If so it would have to be forward deployed. I can imagine the uproar of deploying something like this in Europe.

Politics aside, I am really glad something worked! Keep the ball rolling!

 

[AAAdrone]

Yes the AHW is a shorter range weapon and as such will have to be forward deployed. As such there is a difference between the projects.

 

[flateric]

http://www.smdc.army.mil/Contracts/D3I/D3I-IndustryDayBriefing1Mar2011v1.pdf

 

[bobbymike]

Good summation of the test:

U.S. Hypersonic "Global Strike" Technology Successfully Tested Friday, Nov. 18, 2011

The U.S. Army on Thursday carried out a successful initial test of a cutting-edge technology that might be incorporated into a non-nuclear "prompt global strike" capability that could be targeted anywhere around the world within an hour (see GSN, Nov. 14).


The Advanced Hypersonic Weapon test vehicle was fired by means of a three-stage booster system at 6:30 a.m. from the Pacific Missile Range Facility on the island of Kauai in Hawaii. The vehicle stayed inside the earth's atmosphere, traveling at hypersonic speeds toward its programmed destination point at the Reagan Test Site on the Kwajalein Atoll, according to a Defense Department press release. For the initial trial flight of the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon glider technology, the aim was to gather "data on hypersonic boost-glide technologies and test range performance for long-range atmospheric flight," the Pentagon said. The test mission emphasis was "aerodynamics; navigation, guidance, and control; and thermal protection technologies," the release states.


The glide test vehicle was monitored throughout the test by U.S. military assets on land, at sea, in the sky and in space. Information gathered from the trial will be utilized by the Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command to design and build new hypersonic weapons that employ boost-glide technology (U.S. Defense Department release , Nov. 17). Pentagon spokeswoman Lt. Col. Melinda Morgan told the Associated Press that it took the test vehicle less than 30 minutes to travel roughly 2,300 miles from Kauai to the Kwajalein Atoll (Associated Press/Google News, Nov. 17). A previous test of another experimental non-nuclear prompt global strike technology in August was unsuccessful. In that attempt, a different kind of test vehicle -- the Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle-2 designed by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency -- made an unplanned splashdown in the Pacific Ocean after the glider experienced a flight anomaly (see GSN, Aug. 18).


Unlike the Thursday test of Advanced Hypersonic Weapon vehicle, the Falcon vehicle was programmed to travel much farther -- 4,100 miles, Wired noted. The vehicle tested this week employs a conical design that has been around for decades and can travel up to 6,100 miles an hour or at Mach 8 speed. Not much is known about what happens when an object is flying through the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds and the only real way to learn about what takes place is to actually conduct flight launches, the publication noted.


"You have to go fly," former Joint Chiefs of Staff Vice Chairman Gen. James Cartwright said. "You have to open up the envelope of knowledge. The Air Force and DARPA researchers are jointly studying the aerodynamics involved in hypersonic flight. The Army test could help the Pentagon determine if a carbon composite coating applied to the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon would enable such vehicles to withstand the intense heat generated by traveling at eight times the speed of sound, according to Wired (Noah Shachtman, Wired, Nov. 17)

 

[bobbymike]

Congress Trims Fiscal 2012 Prompt Global Strike Funding:

Despite a reduction in the Pentagon's budget request for the development of prompt global strike technology in this fiscal year, Congress committed some $179 million for these activities in the final version of the Fiscal 2012 defense appropriations legislation. In the conference report accompanying this bill, lawmakers said they cut the Defense Department's $204 million request by $25 million "based on program delays caused by two consecutive flight test failures" of DARPA's Hypersonic Technology Vehicle-2.

The most recent HTV-2 flight test was in August. However, they said they "remain supportive" of PGS development. They stipulated that the funding reduction should not be at the expense of the Army's Advanced Hypersonic Weapon program that conducted a successful flight test in November. PGS is a concept under which the United States is able to strike at any high-value target on the globe within about one hour by using weapons like ultra-fast missiles. Congress rolled the defense spending legislation into an omnibus bill, the 2012 Consolidated Appropriations Act, that President Obama signed into law on Dec. 23.

 

[flateric]

http://www.afa.org/mitchell/reports/MP6_Hypersonics_0610.pdf

 

[hesham]

Hi,


http://genthar.blogspot.com/2011_11_01_archive.html

 

[bobbymike]

U.S. Navy Brass: No Technical Fixes to Avoid Ambiguous Missile Launches
March 16, 2012 By Elaine M. Grossman Global Security ewswire

The Virginia-class attack submarine USS Hawaii, shown in 2010. Engagement with potential nuclear adversaries is likely required to avert any dangerous misinterpretations following the launch of a future conventionally armed ballistic missile from U.S. submarines, the Navy’s top officer said on Friday (U.S. Navy photo). WASHINGTON -- No technical solutions exist that could alone prevent other major world powers from misinterpreting the launch of a U.S. conventional ballistic missile from a submarine as the onset of a nuclear war, the nation’s top Navy officer said on Friday (see GSN, Jan. 27). “I can see and I understand, as written,” lawmaker concerns about the potential for this sort of strategic ambiguity, Adm. Jonathan Greenert, the chief of naval operations, told reporters at a question-and-answer session. He said any resolution of these concerns would have to involve diplomatic engagement with Washington’s potential nuclear-weapon adversaries. Worries that a future Russia or China might respond to a misinterpreted missile launch with a catastrophic atomic salvo have led Congress to repeatedly prohibit the Navy from fielding a conventional version of its nuclear-armed Trident D-5 missile aboard Ohio-class submarines (see GSN, Sept. 22, 2010). The Defense Department early this year announced that it had asked the Navy to design a new, intermediate-range ballistic missile for so-called conventional “prompt global strike” missions from future Virginia-class attack submarines. The idea is to develop the capability to attack an enemy anywhere around the world on just one hour’s notice, without resorting to nuclear war. “The question then is, so how do we assure” it would not create instability during a crisis, said Greenert, who rose to his service’s top uniformed post last September. “That is probably beyond technical; it’s now how is our policy, our understanding, and the protocols with the country [detecting a launch], such that we could be convincing of that.” The Navy official added that such foreign policy and diplomatic issues are beyond his area of expertise.

Greenert’s comments diverge somewhat from assertions on the matter made recently by Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Army general said that by giving the new conventional missile a flight profile that could be distinguished quickly from a nuclear-armed Trident launch, a nuclear response based on miscalculation could be averted. Compared to the earlier Trident missile-based concept, “the technology and therefore the trajectory that would be required to deliver it” would be different for the medium-range missile now on the drawing boards, Dempsey told reporters at a Jan. 26 press conference. “There's [also] the speed at which these delivery systems can move.” He added: “You can lower the trajectory and therefore avoid the confusion you're talking about in terms of it being mistaken for an ICBM with a nuclear warhead.” Dempsey did not address diplomatic dimensions of such a military operation. Critics were immediately skeptical of Dempsey’s remarks, arguing that the unprecedented fielding of a ballistic missile on a stealthy attack submarine would do little to address unease about potential adversaries becoming confused in the heat of crisis. “Even a conventional intermediate-range ballistic missile launched from a converted Virginia-class attack submarine could be misinterpreted because its compressed trajectory would look much like a nuclear D-5 launched in a compressed trajectory as part of a first strike,” atomic weapons expert Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists said at the time. Speaking on Friday, Greenert also divulged more about the potential modifications required for the Virginia-class submarines to accommodate a ballistic missile than his service had done to date. “A step in that direction will be to put the new payload tube that you see in the Block 3” attack submarines authorized for Navy procurement in fiscal 2009 through 2013, the service chief said, noting that the missile’s development is “in the very rudimentary stages” and “more conceptual than specific.” The Navy is currently buying Virginia-class attack vessels at a rate of two per year, with incremental upgrades to the submarine’s design expected on each new procurement “block.” Eight Block 3 submarines, beginning with the 11th Virginia-class hull, will include new wide-diameter launch tubes. The design for next set of boats in the series, Block 4, has not yet been finalized. In the Block 3 vessels, each of two new launch tubes would initially be able to accommodate six Tomahawk conventional cruise missiles, replacing 12 narrow vertical launch tubes for the same number of Tomahawks aboard earlier versions of the submarine. These new launch tubes, located on the submarine bow, could alternatively accommodate one -- and maybe more -- of the new medium-range ballistic missiles, defense sources have told Global Security Newswire. This configuration could permit a total of two or possibly more ballistic missiles in each modified submarine. The new launch tubes will each have an 87-inch diameter, Greenert said.


“That kind of size … that’s your start for at least capacity to put a [ballistic] missile the size that you’re talking about, to get the range for that,” he said. “In the follow-on, it’s within our budget, we have the ‘Virginia payload module,’” Greenert went on to say. “[It’s] a similar capability, only you can get seven now because you’re aft of the sail. But just the configuration of the hull allows you to get that seventh one in the middle, [with] six on the outside.” “So it’s the development of that,” Greenert said, “that I think could perhaps -- and we’re really in the early conceptual stages of that -- lead to a conventional strike payload.” The admiral said it was too early to know how many medium-range ballistic missiles would fit in each of the new launch canisters. “If technology brings a very dense rocket propellant such that you can really get great range, then maybe you do get more than one,” Greenert said. “It’s really about the technology and the range that will be necessary for when we define that ballistic missile, should we define it.” The “first step” would be to ask, “Do you have anything this could get in? Yes, no, maybe so,” he said. “This tube might be it.” The chief of naval operations came close to ruling out that the new Virginia payload modules would be built large enough to house a Trident D-5 missile, an idea that some have proposed as a potentially cheaper alternative to building from scratch a replacement for today’s aging Ohio-class nuclear-armed ballistic missile submarines. Upon launch, today’s D-5 missiles -- as opposed to some future version that might be developed -- “are ejected from the tube, they burst through the water, they ignite,” Greenert said. “And so that gas generator, that entire launching system, that’s pretty big.” A missile “of that capacity” would “clobber just about everything else you have in the Virginia class as we now know it,” he said. The only way around that design challenge would be to extend the body of the existing attack submarine, “and now you’re into the hydrodynamics on a new module [for] an extended Virginia-class [submarine],” he said. “A Trident D-5 is likely too big.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting quote......"If technology brings a very dense rocket propellant such that you can really get great range, then maybe you do get more than one,”..............
Wonder if there is a "dense propellant" being worked on now for this program?

 

[jsport]

Appears some folks still don't understand that all ballistics can and would likely be interpreted as nuke strikes.
Therefore, non-ballistic, stealth and retreiveable LRS family of systems including hypersonic cruise combined w/ potentially maritme hypersonic cruise missiles utilizing dense propellants remain the best "promptness" solution. This is not to mention that in the future ballistics will become vulnerable to shoot down even outside Russia, China.


Nanotechnology continues to advance propellants.

 

[sferrin]

Appears some folks still don't understand that all ballistics can and would likely be interpreted as nuke strikes.
Therefore, non-ballistic, stealth and retreiveable LRS family of systems including hypersonic cruise combined w/ potentially maritme hypersonic cruise missiles utilizing dense propellants remain the best "promptness" solution. This is not to mention that in the future ballistics will become vulnerable to shoot down even outside Russia, China.


Nanotechnology continues to advance propellants.

How many SCUDs were interpreted as nuke strikes? How is nanotechnology advancing propellants? Can you give me an example of solid propellant that uses nanotechnology?