US Hypersonics - Prompt Global Strike Capability

[seruriermarshal]

edit......

 

[bobbymike]

Good article IMHO

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=920

 

[bobbymike]

See bolded item. Am I reading too much into this when it says that they 'fly on the following platforms' and every other system is in operation?

ATK motor cases and vehicle structures fly on the following platforms:

• The Ground-based Midcourse Defense missile-defense interceptor, the centerpiece of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency’s layered ballistic missile defense architecture.
• The Israeli Arrow II and Stunner interceptor missiles, both joint programs between the U.S. Missile Defense Agency and the Israeli Ministry of Defense.
• The Submarine-launched Intermediate-range Ballistic Missile, which will travel at supersonic speed to reach targets within 15 minutes, providing the U.S. Navy with prompt global strike capability.
• The U.S. Air Force’s Minuteman III, a silo-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missile that serves as America’s prime nuclear deterrent.
• The submarine-launched Trident II (D5) missile, the primary strategic weapon in the U.S. Navy’s Fleet Ballistic Missile system.
• And the Lockheed Martin Atlas V family of launch vehicles, part of the U.S. Air Force’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program.

 

[sferrin]

See bolded item. Am I reading too much into this when it says that they 'fly on the following platforms' and every other system is in operation?

ATK motor cases and vehicle structures fly on the following platforms:

• The Ground-based Midcourse Defense missile-defense interceptor, the centerpiece of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency’s layered ballistic missile defense architecture.
• The Israeli Arrow II and Stunner interceptor missiles, both joint programs between the U.S. Missile Defense Agency and the Israeli Ministry of Defense.
• The Submarine-launched Intermediate-range Ballistic Missile, which will travel at supersonic speed to reach targets within 15 minutes, providing the U.S. Navy with prompt global strike capability.
• The U.S. Air Force’s Minuteman III, a silo-based Intercontinental Ballistic Missile that serves as America’s prime nuclear deterrent.
• The submarine-launched Trident II (D5) missile, the primary strategic weapon in the U.S. Navy’s Fleet Ballistic Missile system.
• And the Lockheed Martin Atlas V family of launch vehicles, part of the U.S. Air Force’s Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle program.

How does an intermediate-range "supersonic" missile reach anywhere on the planet in 15 minutes? BTW it sounds like the India Shaurya missile.

 

[bobbymike]

U.S. Brass Reviews Prompt Global Strike, Mulling Submarine-Fired Arms

Nov. 6, 2012 By Elaine M. Grossman Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON -- It may be Election Day across the United States but, at the Pentagon, some top military minds are focused elsewhere. The Defense Department’s highest-level review panel for warfighting concepts on Tuesday is slated to assess how to proceed on developing conventional weapons capable of attacking targets halfway around the world on short notice, Global Security Newswire has learned. The Joint Requirements Oversight Council -- which is chaired by the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and includes the No. 2 officers from each of the four military services -- will meet to discuss the “way forward” for conventional prompt global strike, Joint Staff spokesman Lt. Col. Larry Porter confirmed. The high-level panel has the authority to approve or alter Pentagon plans for the types of combat and support capabilities needed in coming years. In this instance, the Defense Department is seeking a non-nuclear ability to hit with less than one hour’s notice far-flung, time-sensitive targets. Examples might include a terrorist leader spotted at a temporary hide-out or a rogue adversary preparing to launch a ballistic missile. As the situation stands, if no U.S. ships, aircraft or drones are stationed nearby to hit an important short-notice threat, the only alternative might be using a long-range nuclear weapon, according to defense officials. So Pentagon leaders have taken interest in conventionally armed ballistic missiles or maneuverable boost-glide delivery systems that could attack targets worldwide at hypersonic speeds, seeing these as less devastating -- and thus more usable -- alternatives to nuclear arms against selected targets. Porter said he could not offer additional details about the agenda for the military deputies’ Tuesday meeting.


However, defense sources anticipated that the vice chiefs would discuss whether the Navy could develop a new type of prompt-strike weapon for deployment aboard submarines. Some sources contributed to this article on condition of not being named because they lacked permission to publicly address the sensitive topic. Among the other prompt-strike weapons under development for achieving non-nuclear strategic effects are an Air Force Conventional Strike Missile with a Hypersonic Technology Vehicle-2 front end that has encountered some setbacks in testing; and an Army Advanced Hypersonic Weapon that military leaders describe as a useful test bed for ground- or sea-launched systems. Any decisions emerging from the Joint Requirements Oversight Council meeting could significantly affect which technologies move ahead, and it appears to be a good bet that the new missile for Virginia-class vessels will carry the day. Under the emerging naval concept, revealed by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta early this year, the Navy would begin developing a capacity for the fast-attack submersibles to launch conventionally armed missiles. Insiders have described the delivery concept as an intermediate-range ballistic missile, possibly featuring a front end that could maneuver into its target in the final stages of flight. As few as two, or as many as 12, such missiles might be carried on the attack submarines, according to sources. The new idea might yet prove politically controversial amid a congressional ban on building conventional versions of nuclear-armed Trident D-5 ballistic missiles. Lawmakers have voiced concerns that firing a fast-flying missile from a stealthy submarine could spark dangerous international “ambiguity” in a crisis -- if Russia or China, for instance, misinterpreted the launch as a first salvo of a nuclear war.


Navy budget plans indicate that the effort to develop the so-called Virginia Payload Module would cost nearly $800 million between 2013 and 2017, but no official price tag to complete the program has been released. The Senate Appropriations Committee in August cut all but $10 million from a $100 million line item for the Navy project in its mark-up of the fiscal 2013 defense appropriations bill. The panel called the module effort “early to need,” suggesting it was not yet necessary for military missions. The Senate committee also questioned whether an estimated expansion of the attack submarine’s size by one-third to install a nearly 94-foot center section to hold missiles might “result in instability to proven submarine design, disruption to a stable production line and add significant cost risk.” The Senate’s defense appropriations report directed the Pentagon to use the remaining $10 million “to validate the [Virginia Payload Module] requirement and cost estimate with the Joint Requirements Oversight Council, to ensure the VPM program is subject” to the “rigor” typical of a major defense procurement effort. At the same time, the Senate panel 's bill added $90 million to the defense-wide account for Conventional Prompt Global Strike, directing that the funds be used for continuing development of the Army’s Advanced Hypersonic Weapon. Given that a version of the Army weapon might someday be used as a front end for a future submarine-based prompt global strike missile, the net effect of the Senate actions might prove to be less of a reduction than a rebalancing of priorities, according to some defense sources. The House fully funded Navy appropriations to develop conventional strike from attack submarines, boosting by $15 million a $165.2 million line item for an array of new design features -- some unrelated to the payload module -- on the Virginia-class boats.


The full Senate has yet to vote on its version of the legislation and the two chambers to date have not resolved differences between their spending bills. Several federal agencies including the Defense Department have been operating since Oct. 1 on monies provided by a fiscal 2013 continuing resolution. Lawmakers have urged the Pentagon to study whether there might be ways to mitigate the types of crisis-stability concerns raised by equipping ballistic-missile submarines with conventionally armed look-alikes of nuclear-tipped Trident D-5s. They have also encouraged consideration of using ground-based systems instead. Yet, some nuclear-weapon experts are uncertain whether the proposed new attack capability on Virginia-class submarines might raise similar ambiguity concerns. In fact, a number of observers have begun raising the possibility that virtually any U.S. conventional prompt global strike system could hasten the pre-emptive launch of an adversary nuclear weapon, based on a use-it-or-lose-it logic. Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists said early this year that 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.” Rather than strengthen deterrence, prompt-strike conventional weapons of any kind could push U.S. adversaries “even further toward more prompt-launch capabilities” of their own, he said later at an August symposium. “More trigger-happy postures, if you will, that could in fact weaken deterrence and increase the risk of mistaken, inadvertent or even deliberate escalation.” The Pentagon “has no plans to adapt a nuclear missile to carry a conventional payload or to use ballistic-missile submarines as delivery systems,” Madelyn Creedon, assistant Defense secretary for global strategic affairs, said at the same panel discussion. “Those systems raise ambiguity that was deemed unacceptable. … The risk of miscalculation resulting from the ballistic trajectory or [a weapon] that is launched from a ballistic-missile submarine -- it’s real.” Like other Defense officials, though, Creedon appeared increasingly comfortable with a submarine-based solution for prompt global strike, as long as certain precautions are taken. The Pentagon is mulling two “ways to manage this risk”: One is “to change the trajectory” of a weapon so that it is no longer akin to nuclear-armed ballistic missile flight, and the other is to “change the platform,” Creedon said.


She and Kristensen spoke at a symposium in Omaha, Neb., sponsored by U.S. Strategic Command, which is responsible for any long-range conventional or nuclear combat operations. “The technical solutions we seek include boost-glide vehicles, which … have a distinctively nonballistic trajectory for more than 50 percent” of their flight path, Creedon said. “This will significantly reduce the risks that a state -- which would have to possess the capability to detect and characterize that attacking missile -- would misperceive the attack as a nuclear one, [rather than] conventional.” She also described what she called “cross-maneuverability,” a capacity for a weapon to change direction repeatedly while in flight. In contrast to a ballistic path to target, which is locked into an inverted-U shaped trajectory, “we may be able to reduce or eliminate overflight concerns” in which Russia or others might worry they are under attack and could launch their own nuclear weapons precipitously. Technology alternatives to developing conventionally armed ballistic missiles also “can be augmented by policy solutions that incorporate confidence-building [weapon] basing strategies and transparency measures into any deployment of such a system,” Creedon said.

 

[bobbymike]

http://defense.aol.com/2012/12/17/pentagons-global-strike-weapon-stuck-in-limbo-congress-fears-a/?icid=trending1

 

[bobbymike]

DOD Cancels Acquisition Decision For Conventional Prompt Global Strike

The Pentagon has decided the Conventional Prompt Global Strike program, which aims to develop the capability to strike targets worldwide within an hour, is not ready to formally enter the acquisition process.
--------------------------------------
Anyone with DOD background what does this mean it terms of where in the development cycle this weapon system is? Is the technology mature enough that is could be produced in the near term but is not quite ready or is this worse news than I am interpreting it to be?

 

[jjnodice]

I couldn't find the full article. Was this a USAF or a USN decision?

 

[sferrin]

DOD Cancels Acquisition Decision For Conventional Prompt Global Strike

The Pentagon has decided the Conventional Prompt Global Strike program, which aims to develop the capability to strike targets worldwide within an hour, is not ready to formally enter the acquisition process.
--------------------------------------
Anyone with DOD background what does this mean it terms of where in the development cycle this weapon system is? Is the technology mature enough that is could be produced in the near term but is not quite ready or is this worse news than I am interpreting it to be?

I'd be astonished if they even got to hardware. If I were betting I'd guess it wasn't much more than a series of Powerpoints saying "we could use an already existing missile with a different warhead".

 

[bobbymike]

I couldn't find the full article. Was this a USAF or a USN decision?

Full article behind a pay wall. But I think all programs are run out of the OSD (Office of the Sec Defense) but I could be wrong

 

[2IDSGT]

In any case, it was probably canceled because there is no fool-proof way make sure the system won't be confused with a nuclear strike (as in large IR plumes headed toward the Eurasian landmass).

 

[TomS]

Anyone with DOD background what does this mean it terms of where in the development cycle this weapon system is? Is the technology mature enough that is could be produced in the near term but is not quite ready or is this worse news than I am interpreting it to be?

There are any number of reasons a program could be deemed not ready to enter acquisition, from lack of technical maturity to absence of a clearly defined requirement. IMO, perceived lack of Congressional support is as likely as anything in this case. DoD isn't going to commit to the effort of establishing a full program office if they believe the program is going to get killed in the first budget cycle.

 

[jjnodice]

The real key is that the testing programs continue -- and work -- otherwise no one is going to stand up and ask to fund an acquisitions program.

It is good news that DARPA is going to have a 3rd HTV-2 flight. It has to succeed. Orbital can't splash the vehicle or fail to shroud separate and LM has to get the thing to fly all they way to impact...

Any news on more Army AHW tests? They had a success. When is the next one?

 

[sferrin]

In any case, it was probably canceled because there is no fool-proof way make sure the system won't be confused with a nuclear strike (as in large IR plumes headed toward the Eurasian landmass).

That doesn't seem to concern Russia anymore.

 

[2IDSGT]

In any case, it was probably canceled because there is no fool-proof way make sure the system won't be confused with a nuclear strike (as in large IR plumes headed toward the Eurasian landmass).

That doesn't seem to concern Russia anymore.

See "Black Brant scare." Even in the chummy days of Yeltsin, the risks of misinterpretation were present. (although it was a radar warning in this case). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/coldwar/shatter031598a.htm

 

[chuck4]

In any case, it was probably canceled because there is no fool-proof way make sure the system won't be confused with a nuclear strike (as in large IR plumes headed toward the Eurasian landmass).

That doesn't seem to concern Russia anymore.

See "Black Brant scare." Even in the chummy days of Yeltsin, the risks of misinterpretation were present. (although it was a radar warning in this case). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/coldwar/shatter031598a.htm

The Russians justify the large payload capacity of their new ICBM partly on the need for the ICBM to support a large conventional warhead. This suggest the Russians also intend to field an equivalent to prompt global strike.

If the Chinese have indeed fielded a maneuverable conventional anti-carrier warhead on top of an IRBM booster as the USN have claimed, then they are just a booster switch away from fielding an equivalent of prompt global strike.

Within the next decade, the capacity to launch pinpoint strike anywhere in the world on short notice might be common and no longer in itself an American advantage. The remaining American advantage might be better intelligence provided by a better surveillance assets.

 

[2IDSGT]

The Russians justify the large payload capacity of their new ICBM partly on the need for the ICBM to support a large conventional warhead. This suggest the Russians also intend to field an equivalent to prompt global strike.

If the Chinese have indeed fielded a maneuverable conventional anti-carrier warhead on top of an IRBM booster as the USN have claimed, then they are just a booster switch away from fielding an equivalent of prompt global strike.

Within the next decade, the capacity to launch pinpoint strike anywhere in the world on short notice might be common and no longer in itself an American advantage. The remaining American advantage might be better intelligence provided by a better surveillance assets.

The Russians are continuing their tradition of large, land-based ICBMs because that is the cheapest way to fill their New-START quota. The capability for conventional, precision warheads is there, but I don't really see that as an advantage for anyone because I can scarcely think of a more expensive/risky way to deliver a non-nuclear payload.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the Russians or Chinese waste money on such a system. Who would they use the things against? The US? I can hear the hotline conversation now: "Don't worry Mr. President. The 50 ICBMs we just launched against you are totally conventional. We pinky-swear!"

 

[bobbymike]

The Russians justify the large payload capacity of their new ICBM partly on the need for the ICBM to support a large conventional warhead. This suggest the Russians also intend to field an equivalent to prompt global strike.

If the Chinese have indeed fielded a maneuverable conventional anti-carrier warhead on top of an IRBM booster as the USN have claimed, then they are just a booster switch away from fielding an equivalent of prompt global strike.

Within the next decade, the capacity to launch pinpoint strike anywhere in the world on short notice might be common and no longer in itself an American advantage. The remaining American advantage might be better intelligence provided by a better surveillance assets.

The Russians are continuing their tradition of large, land-based ICBMs because that is the cheapest way to fill their New-START quota. The capability for conventional, precision warheads is there, but I don't really see that as an advantage for anyone because I can scarcely think of a more expensive/risky way to deliver a non-nuclear payload.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the Russians or Chinese waste money on such a system. Who would they use the things against? The US? I can hear the hotline conversation now: "Don't worry Mr. President. The 50 ICBMs we just launched against you are totally conventional. We pinky-swear!"

China has a 'prompt' although not global conventional capability in its hundreds of MRBM's some said to be accurate enough to hit a carrier at sea. there would be no reason for a nuclear power to launch 50 conventional missiles at CONUS so the premise is faulty.

I envision a conventional missile on a SSGN or an ICBM range weapon based on the east and west coast for situations like a NORK mssile being loaded with a nuke and having only an hour to take it out. Right now this prompt mission would entail a nuclear armed missile, I think having a conventional capability would just be another tool in the tool box.

 

[sferrin]

China has a 'prompt' although not global conventional capability in its hundreds of MRBM's some said to be accurate enough to hit a carrier at sea. there would be no reason for a nuclear power to launch 50 conventional missiles at CONUS so the premise is faulty.

I envision a conventional missile on a SSGN or an ICBM range weapon based on the east and west coast for situations like a NORK mssile being loaded with a nuke and having only an hour to take it out. Right now this prompt mission would entail a nuclear armed missile, I think having a conventional capability would just be another tool in the tool box.

If the US does it (or even talks about it) it's the end of the world and, "ZOMG!!11 Nucular wARE!!!" If China or Russia does though, nothing but crickets.

 

[dark sidius]

And what about the other projects like hypersonic glider or Darpa integrated hypersonic? The conventional icbm is a mistake but there is another concept who can work.

 

[2IDSGT]

China has a 'prompt' although not global conventional capability in its hundreds of MRBM's some said to be accurate enough to hit a carrier at sea. there would be no reason for a nuclear power to launch 50 conventional missiles at CONUS so the premise is faulty.

DING, DING: you win the prize! Of course the premise if faulty. Point being, conventional ICBMs would be useless for China/Russia because the only ICBM-ranged targets they have are in the continental US (unless Putin wants to blow up some dissidents hiding in Uruguay, or someplace comparably distant). Of course, it's their money to waste.

I get the rationale behind global strike for the US. It would be pretty neat if we could just push a button and make anyone on the planet dead within 30 minutes, but I'd just as soon not spend the money on something of such limited utility that looks just like a nuclear weapon to anyone's early-warning system. As for your NORK scenario, why would we need to use Minuteman IIIs out of Vandenberg when we already have assets much closer that could do the job in the same amount of time or less, at a fraction of the cost?

 

[bobbymike]

China has a 'prompt' although not global conventional capability in its hundreds of MRBM's some said to be accurate enough to hit a carrier at sea. there would be no reason for a nuclear power to launch 50 conventional missiles at CONUS so the premise is faulty.

DING, DING: you win the prize! Of course the premise if faulty. Point being, conventional ICBMs would be useless for China/Russia because the only ICBM-ranged targets they have are in the continental US (unless Putin wants to blow up some dissidents hiding in Uruguay, or someplace comparably distant). Of course, it's their money to waste.

I get the rationale behind global strike for the US. It would be pretty neat if we could just push a button and make anyone on the planet dead within 30 minutes, but I'd just as soon not spend the money on something of such limited utility that looks just like a nuclear weapon to anyone's early-warning system. As for your NORK scenario, why would we need to use Minuteman IIIs out of Vandenberg when we already have assets much closer that could do the job in the same amount of time or less, at a fraction of the cost?

I don't know what other assets would be 30 minutes from a NORK base especialy in the north of the country. Plus a HTV-2 type vehicle on a Minotaur type launcher would definitely get throught to the target but F-15E's in South Korea may not (B-2's in Guam way to far away).

The National Acedemy of Science did a great study (available free online at their website) that said coastal launch with inspections would placate any Russian concern of the payload.

And just like you mentioned that Russia and China have no or limited global range targets (non-nulcear that is), the US would not be initiating a nuclear war with one missile launched from California or Florida.

 

[sferrin]

China has a 'prompt' although not global conventional capability in its hundreds of MRBM's some said to be accurate enough to hit a carrier at sea. there would be no reason for a nuclear power to launch 50 conventional missiles at CONUS so the premise is faulty.

DING, DING: you win the prize! Of course the premise if faulty. Point being, conventional ICBMs would be useless for China/Russia because the only ICBM-ranged targets they have are in the continental US (unless Putin wants to blow up some dissidents hiding in Uruguay, or someplace comparably distant). Of course, it's their money to waste.

I get the rationale behind global strike for the US. It would be pretty neat if we could just push a button and make anyone on the planet dead within 30 minutes, but I'd just as soon not spend the money on something of such limited utility that looks just like a nuclear weapon to anyone's early-warning system. As for your NORK scenario, why would we need to use Minuteman IIIs out of Vandenberg when we already have assets much closer that could do the job in the same amount of time or less, at a fraction of the cost?

Yep. And we thought Bubba was stupid for using Tomahawks on tents. Imagine the cost of using MMIIIs on tents.

 

[chuck4]

China has a 'prompt' although not global conventional capability in its hundreds of MRBM's some said to be accurate enough to hit a carrier at sea. there would be no reason for a nuclear power to launch 50 conventional missiles at CONUS so the premise is faulty.

DING, DING: you win the prize! Of course the premise if faulty. Point being, conventional ICBMs would be useless for China/Russia because the only ICBM-ranged targets they have are in the continental US (unless Putin wants to blow up some dissidents hiding in Uruguay, or someplace comparably distant). Of course, it's their money to waste.

I get the rationale behind global strike for the US. It would be pretty neat if we could just push a button and make anyone on the planet dead within 30 minutes, but I'd just as soon not spend the money on something of such limited utility that looks just like a nuclear weapon to anyone's early-warning system. As for your NORK scenario, why would we need to use Minuteman IIIs out of Vandenberg when we already have assets much closer that could do the job in the same amount of time or less, at a fraction of the cost?

Yep. And we thought Bubba was stupid for using Tomahawks on tents. Imagine the cost of using MMIIIs on tents.

Imagine if OBL is in the tent, talking on a satellite phone.

 

[sferrin]

China has a 'prompt' although not global conventional capability in its hundreds of MRBM's some said to be accurate enough to hit a carrier at sea. there would be no reason for a nuclear power to launch 50 conventional missiles at CONUS so the premise is faulty.

DING, DING: you win the prize! Of course the premise if faulty. Point being, conventional ICBMs would be useless for China/Russia because the only ICBM-ranged targets they have are in the continental US (unless Putin wants to blow up some dissidents hiding in Uruguay, or someplace comparably distant). Of course, it's their money to waste.

I get the rationale behind global strike for the US. It would be pretty neat if we could just push a button and make anyone on the planet dead within 30 minutes, but I'd just as soon not spend the money on something of such limited utility that looks just like a nuclear weapon to anyone's early-warning system. As for your NORK scenario, why would we need to use Minuteman IIIs out of Vandenberg when we already have assets much closer that could do the job in the same amount of time or less, at a fraction of the cost?

Yep. And we thought Bubba was stupid for using Tomahawks on tents. Imagine the cost of using MMIIIs on tents.

Imagine if OBL is in the tent, talking on a satellite phone.

. . .and Pakistan gives him a ring and says, "bro, you better GTF outta Dodge, an ICBM is on it's way".

 

[chuck4]

. . .and Pakistan gives him a ring and says, "bro, you better GTF outta Dodge, an ICBM is on it's way".

This is why PGS won't work against countries with surveillance and early warning satellites, like Russia or China. Pakistan, on the other hand, won't know what hit it, unless its friends in beijing are particularly concerned about the health of OBL.

PGS is a highly specialized solution to a very narrow range of problems. It's more similar to the bouncing bomb designed specifically to take out dams in the Ruhr, and not at all like a generalized part of a country's strategic deterrence. So it shouldn't be evaluated as such.

 

[sferrin]

. . .and Pakistan gives him a ring and says, "bro, you better GTF outta Dodge, an ICBM is on it's way".

This is why PGS won't work against countries with surveillance and early warning satellites, like Russia or China. Pakistan, on the other hand, won't know what hit it, unless its friends in beijing are particularly concerned about the health of OBL.

PGS is a highly specialized solution to a very narrow range of problems. It's more similar to the bouncing bomb designed specifically to take out dams in the Ruhr, and not at all like a generalized part of a country's strategic deterrence. So it shouldn't be evaluated as such.

Yep, and killing an individual isn't one of them. Even in Iraq, where we had people on the ground with eyes on Saddam, we never succeeded in bombing him. In once instance a B-1B obliterated a building not 12 minutes after Saddam was seen entering it. Missed him. He'd gone out the back.

 

[2IDSGT]

PGS is a highly specialized solution to a very narrow range of problems. It's more similar to the bouncing bomb designed specifically to take out dams in the Ruhr, and not at all like a generalized part of a country's strategic deterrence. So it shouldn't be evaluated as such.

Well, if it's as cheap for us today as the bouncing bomb was for the UK in WWII, then I say go for it.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Imagine if OBL is in the tent, talking on a satellite phone.

1. is it really him? (UAV? HUMINT? If we do have a UAV is it armed? yay! no need for prompt global strike)
2. Can we confirm its really him?
3. OK how long will he be there?
4. are there any civilians in the area, or in the house with him?
5. Can we confirm the kill?
6. What about the intel on site?
7. Seriously, is it really him?
8. "mr President we are like, 75 percent sure it is totally him"
9. "what about casualties/collateral damage"
10 "??"
11. "are we going to use UAVs? SEALs? Cruise missiles?"
12 "Oh no sir that would be crazy, we are going to shoot an ICBM at place in Pakistan"
13. "Oh when you put it like that... yeah do it. I authorize the launch"
14. What if he leaves?
15. What if we miss?

Didnt we shoot a whole bunch of missiles at Bin Laden over the years? In the end it was Spec Ops that got him.

We have "prompt global strike" already, it looks like an armed Predator UAV. We are prompt global striking as i type this in Pakistan, Yemen, etc.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

PGS is a highly specialized solution to a very narrow range of problems.

I feel like its a solution looking for a problem. As you say any of the big boys will see it and won't like it coming at them, and any of the little boys won't know what hit em so you don't need an ICBM--You can do it with smaller already available and developed assets.

PGS is an orphan in my book.

This is why PGS won't work against countries with surveillance and early warning satellites, like Russia or China. Pakistan, on the other hand, won't know what hit it, unless its friends in beijing are particularly concerned about the health of OBL.

So we have to tip them off that we are killing OBL? Are we informing Russia? Or we just launch and hope they all understand? What if it is not OBL but one of the other higher ups? does he rate a PGS ICBM strike? How many of these things can we launch and beg forgiveness/understanding? What if we know where all these guys are but they (surprise!) don't live in a nice secluded tent in the mountains but in developed neighborhoods? Can we confirm the kill? We thought we had killed OBL in a cave at one point. If we level a neighborhood to get this guy, a little proof that it was worth it would go a long way...

In the end you also need civilian leadership to have the guts to push the button. Its not like the US wasn't capable of killing Bin Laden until September 12, 2001. The capability was always there, but we lacked the will. Convincing the boss to launch a PGS after we throw billions developing it is the real trick.

 

[bobbymike]

The scenarios I envision are, as I stated, I NORK missile with a nuke and let's add an Iranian missile with a nuke. Both countries have bases longer than 30 minutes from any current US weapon. A Trident CTM near Diego Garcia or by Taiwan could also do the trick.
It is a very limited tool in the toolbax however, as recent reports have stated coastal launch with inspections with a global range weapon combined with trajectory shaping could be an effective tool. A single missile launch from California will NOT cause the Russians or Chinese to start WWIII.

 

[2IDSGT]

The scenarios I envision are, as I stated, I NORK missile with a nuke and let's add an Iranian missile with a nuke.

Such a plausible scenario. : You are assuming a level of stupidity for our dastardly opponents that beggars belief. Between our existing deterrent and missile defense, if someone wanted to nickle and dime us with nukes, they'd probably just use FedEx as their delivery system and deny responsibility.

 

[bobbymike]

The scenarios I envision are, as I stated, I NORK missile with a nuke and let's add an Iranian missile with a nuke.

Such a plausible scenario. : You are assuming a level of stupidity for our dastardly opponents that beggars belief. Between our existing deterrent and missile defense, if someone wanted to nickle and dime us with nukes, they'd probably just use FedEx as their delivery system and deny responsibility.

Who is saying the attack can only be on us? You've heard of the concept of extended deterrence? I think Iran would and could launch a nuke at Israel or NORK missile on Tokyo or Seoul. What would be our response if we knew North Korea was targeting Tokyo? Or Iran Tel Aviv? That's what makes a conventional response more appropriate.
Guess what the weapon may never be used and if this seems like a waste to you then you question the entire premise of strategic deterrent doctrine since the end of WWII. You would even be interested to hear the US believes the F-22 and 35 are 'deterrents'. Most of the weapons we build are to prevent war. One of the big strategic debates since the end of the Cold War is that our nukes are too big and therefore cannot be used to deter an Iran or a North Korea so are in fact no deterrent at all. RNEP was to be build for this purpose not to be used but to have rogue nations believe we would use them.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I might be for PGS if it saved us in other areas. But there is a reason we have hundreds of bases all over the world, alliances, and a massive navy. Its all with the purpose of being "forward deployed" anyway. Mix that in with the missile shields we have been developing... PGS is just one more expensive way to do the same things we already spent/spend a bunch of money on already.

If PGS meant we could shrink the navy or close down some bases to save some cash I might be a little more open to it.

 

[bobbymike]

I might be for PGS if it saved us in other areas. But there is a reason we have hundreds of bases all over the world, alliances, and a massive navy. Its all with the purpose of being "forward deployed" anyway. Mix that in with the missile shields we have been developing... PGS is just one more expensive way to do the same things we already spent/spend a bunch of money on already.

If PGS meant we could shrink the navy or close down some bases to save some cash I might be a little more open to it.

The difference between 'Global Strike' the US can hit anywhere on earth now with B-2's from Whiteman or forward deployed to Guam or Diego Garcia but it is not 'prompt'. Why do you think the US is looking at this concept, along with various hypersonic missiles. becasue there is a potential unique target set that cannot be reached in a prompt manner.
If you drew 60 minute 'attack time' circles around Reapers, bombers or fighters planes around North Korea or Iran there would be huge swaths of territory that could not be reached in 60 minutes notwithstanding the fact that in a crisis you would have to have hundreds of them in the air at all times possibly week after week. And they may not make it to the target anyway. I think that might be more costly than a few missiles submarine launched intermediate range missiles on a SSGN.
Secondly I think it would also be a great way to 'exercise' the solid rocket, re-entry vehicle, guidance and other key missile technologies industrial base.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

The difference between 'Global Strike' the US can hit anywhere on earth now with B-2's from Whiteman or forward deployed to Guam or Diego Garcia but it is not 'prompt'. Why do you think the US is looking at this concept, along with various hypersonic missiles. becasue there is a potential unique target set that cannot be reached in a prompt manner.
If you drew 60 minute 'attack time' circles around Reapers, bombers or fighters planes around North Korea or Iran there would be huge swaths of territory that could not be reached in 60 minutes notwithstanding the fact that in a crisis you would have to have hundreds of them in the air at all times possibly week after week. And they may not make it to the target anyway. I think that might be more costly than a few missiles submarine launched intermediate range missiles on a SSGN.

I honestly think that the "kill anything in an hour" is going to be super expensive no matter how you slice it. Not only that but you have to have the kind of real time intel that positively confirms that something is indeed happening, get that info to the proper civilian authorities, and then launch and destroy that threat in under sixty minutes with their decision. If its come down to this magical "we have 60 minutes or less scenario" its already too late. I know no one wants to hear that, but at that point PGS is a last second reaction to wheels that are already in motion and at which point there has already been a massive failure in intel.

Our political doctrine has almost always given the enemy the first shot. typically tensions are high before a war anyway. ITs not like we don't have assests in the middle east, is not like we don't have assets in north korea. ITs not like we aren't constantly spying on them and watching for escalation or war like intentions. Your scenario hinges on us not noticing anything wrong and then just like in hollywood, one hour before the attack we uncover their sinister plans and PGS saves the day. Like I said if we are learning about this an hour before it happens, its already too late.

Lets think about what would happen if we suddenly found out that North Korea or Iran was going to launch a nuke in 60 minutes, and kind of gauge the United States and global reaction to that. Just kind of pause and ponder that for a second.

Secondly I think it would also be a great way to 'exercise' the solid rocket, re-entry vehicle, guidance and other key missile technologies industrial base.

Then lets fund that because has other applications that could maybe someday lead to a plausible PGS, rather than the other way around.

 

[bobbymike]

The difference between 'Global Strike' the US can hit anywhere on earth now with B-2's from Whiteman or forward deployed to Guam or Diego Garcia but it is not 'prompt'. Why do you think the US is looking at this concept, along with various hypersonic missiles. becasue there is a potential unique target set that cannot be reached in a prompt manner.
If you drew 60 minute 'attack time' circles around Reapers, bombers or fighters planes around North Korea or Iran there would be huge swaths of territory that could not be reached in 60 minutes notwithstanding the fact that in a crisis you would have to have hundreds of them in the air at all times possibly week after week. And they may not make it to the target anyway. I think that might be more costly than a few missiles submarine launched intermediate range missiles on a SSGN.

I honestly think that the "kill anything in an hour" is going to be super expensive no matter how you slice it. Not only that but you have to have the kind of real time intel that positively confirms that something is indeed happening, get that info to the proper civilian authorities, and then launch and destroy that threat in under sixty minutes with their decision. If its come down to this magical "we have 60 minutes or less scenario" its already too late. I know no one wants to hear that, but at that point PGS is a last second reaction to wheels that are already in motion and at which point there has already been a massive failure in intel.

Our political doctrine has almost always given the enemy the first shot. typically tensions are high before a war anyway. ITs not like we don't have assests in the middle east, is not like we don't have assets in north korea. ITs not like we aren't constantly spying on them and watching for escalation or war like intentions. Your scenario hinges on us not noticing anything wrong and then just like in hollywood, one hour before the attack we uncover their sinister plans and PGS saves the day. Like I said if we are learning about this an hour before it happens, its already too late.

Lets think about what would happen if we suddenly found out that North Korea or Iran was going to launch a nuke in 60 minutes, and kind of gauge the United States and global reaction to that. Just kind of pause and ponder that for a second.

Secondly I think it would also be a great way to 'exercise' the solid rocket, re-entry vehicle, guidance and other key missile technologies industrial base.

Then lets fund that because has other applications that could maybe someday lead to a plausible PGS, rather than the other way around.

Then you believe it is a weapon looking for a problem rather than a problem that was identified and a weapon solution arrived at to meet that set of threats? Meaning that the Pentagon has determined we don't really need this but it would be cool to have or at different times the Pentagon has said, damn we could take out target 'A' but we have nothing within X amount of time from the target I wish we had a prompt strike capability.
You might be right the Pentagon has developed weapons for both cases

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Then you believe it is a weapon looking for a problem rather than a problem that was identified and a weapon solution arrived at to meet that set of threats? Meaning that the Pentagon has determined we don't really need this but it would be cool to have or at different times the Pentagon has said, damn we could take out target 'A' but we have nothing within X amount of time from the target I wish we had a prompt strike capability.
You might be right the Pentagon has developed weapons for both cases

This is what I believe:

*we will spend billions developing PGS and each missile will cost in the millions. And we will never have as many as we would like.

*in ten years "cool to have" may be forces in the strength we have right now after all these cuts that are coming up

*The missiles will fly at the speed of the intelligence community, and civilian decision makers not whatever their MPH stat says.

as for the the North Korean and Iran nuclear scenarios you have posited I will ask what you feel the PGS missiles should be targeted at before commenting further

 

[bobbymike]

Sandia Plays Key Role in Hypersonic WeaponBy Charles D. Brunt / Journal Staff Writeron Thu, Dec 27, 2012 Sandia National Laboratories is a key player in the Pentagon’s race to develop an unmanned “hypersonic” vehicle that can travel at least five times the speed of sound and strike a target anywhere in the world within an hour. The Sandia News Lab, an in-house weekly, published a story this summer, detailing the labs’ role and what it called the first successful test flight of the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon. The lengthy story outlined the Nov. 17, 2011, 2,485-mile flight from a test facility at Kauai, Hawaii, and displayed a rendering of a conical device with fins. Although the story was seen by thousands and remains easily available to the public online, both Sandia and the Defense Department have refused Journal requests to discuss the multi-million-dollar project or interview engineers or scientists involved with it. Sandia Labs spokeswoman Heather Clark, who wrote the May story, referred reporters to her story and further interview requests to the Department of Defense.
This is an illustration of the U.S. Army’s Advanced Hypersonic Vehicle that appeared in the Sandia National Laboratories’ inhouse weekly. The hypersonic project is one of a handful that the Pentagon hopes will result in an unmanned vehicle that can strike a target anywhere in the world within an hour.
Although no images of the Army’s Advanced Hypersonic Weapon have been made public, a June 2011 environmental impact report includes this computer-generated model.
The DOD issued a release immediately after the test. But DOD spokeswoman Lt. Col. Melinda F. Morgan said this month that “appropriate personnel” at the Defense Department declined to be interviewed. The Pentagon’s ultimate goal is to develop a reusable hypersonic cruise vehicle that can take off from a conventional military runway and strike targets 10,357 miles away within an hour, according to Globalsecurity.org, a website for military policy research. Defense planners say the ability to strike enemy targets faster than existing missiles can provide a strong non-nuclear deterrent to rogue dictators and terrorists. At hypersonic speeds, a military attack would have vastly outperformed, for example, the Tomahawk-guided missiles fired at Osama bin Laden’s al Qaida training camps in Afghanistan in 1998. By the time the Tomahawks reached their targets, bin Laden, who had been at one of the camps, was miles away, according to published reports.

The development of various prototypes of hypersonic vehicles is overseen by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency as part of the Pentagon’s Prompt Global Strike program. Among the handful of hypersonic projects the Pentagon has funded – at the rate of about $2 billion in the past decade – is the Army’s Advanced Hypersonic Weapon. Sandia National Labs is involved in the development of that vehicle’s rocket booster, the glide vehicle, the guidance fin system and the abort system, according to the Sandia Lab News article.

Hypersonic flight Since the 1960s, engineers have been trying to sustain hypersonic flight, but with limited success. Hypersonic speeds pose a myriad of challenges, ranging from control issues to the intense heat generated by friction as the craft moves through the lower atmosphere. Even with advanced materials, the craft’s surface temperature is likely to exceed 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit at Mach 6, and 5,600 degrees at Mach 8, according to Globalsecurity.com. Meanwhile, the craft’s internal instruments and payloads have to remain operational. Despite those challenges, hypersonic flight is viewed as the next evolutionary step in non-nuclear warfare and commercial space travel. Unlike conventional bombs, the hypersonic weapon’s immense destructive power results from its kinetic energy – the energy resulting from its mass and incredible speed. No images of the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon have been made public, but a June 2011 environmental impact report prepared by the U.S. Army’s Space and Missile Defense Command includes a computer-generated model labeled “Advanced Hypersonic Weapon: Hypersonic Glide Body.” The image published with the Sandia Lab News article also shows a conical body with rocket-like fins.

Based on those images, the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon has a cone-shaped “glide body” that is carried into space by a conventional rocket. At an undisclosed altitude, the craft separates from the rocket and begins a controlled descent through the atmosphere, reaching hypersonic speeds before smashing into its target or, during developmental testing, into the Pacific Ocean. Testing continues Although the Pentagon will not say how fast the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon can go, a hypersonic vehicle being developed by Lockheed Martin under the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency – called the Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 – traveled at 20 times the speed of sound before going out of control and splashing into the Pacific Ocean during an Aug. 11, 2011, test. The Sandia Lab News story regarding the Nov. 17, 2011, test flight of the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon said that project is under the direction of the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command/Army Forces Strategic Command. The test vehicle was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility at Kauai, Hawaii. It flew its “non-ballistic glide trajectory at hypersonic speed” before splashing down 2,485 miles away at the Army’s Reagan Test Site on the Kwajalein Atoll, the Lab News reported. About 50 Sandia employees viewed the test, which represented about four years of work for the lab. The project involved up to 200 employees, the article said. It quoted David Keese, director of Integrated Military Systems Development Center 5400, as saying the flight had many firsts: the first time a Sandia-developed booster had flown a low-altitude, long-range horizontal flight path at the edge of the Earth’s atmosphere; the first time eight grid fins were used to stabilize a U.S. missile system and the first time a glide vehicle flew at hypersonic speeds at such altitude and range. “The objective of the test was to collect data on hypersonic boost-glide technologies and test range performance for long-range atmospheric flight. Mission emphasis was on aerodynamics; navigation, guidance and control; and thermal protection technologies,” the article said. Data collected during that test were to be used by the Department of Defense to model and develop future hypersonic vehicles and technologies. Neither Sandia nor the DOD would comment on Sandia’s current or future role with the program.

 

[quellish]

From "Conventional Prompt Global Strike and Long-Range Ballistic Missiles: Background and Issues", Congressional Research Service, 2012:

"The need for prompt long-range, or global, strike capabilities has been addressed in general defense policy studies, such as the 2001, 2006, and 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) Reports. The 2001 QDR noted that the U.S. defense strategy “rests on the assumption that U.S. forces have the ability to project power worldwide.”4 The 2006 QDR expanded on the need for prompt global strike capabilities, noting that they would provide the United States with the ability “to attack fixed, hard and deeply buried, mobile and re-locatable targets with improved accuracy anywhere in the world promptly upon the President’s order.” This QDR went on to call for the deployment of a prompt global strike capability, using Trident submarine-based ballistic missiles armed with conventional warheads, within two to four years.5 The 2010 QDR also noted that “enhanced long-range strike capabilities are one means of countering growing threats to forward- deployed forces and bases and ensuring U.S. power projection capabilities.” It noted that DOD is pursuing a number of programs to meet this need, and, as a part of this effort, 'plans to experiment with conventional prompt global strike prototypes.'"

CPGS is not about the HVT mission, it's about power projection and deterrence. While the HVT mission makes for good fiction, the real issues that CGPS is intended to address are quite different.