US Hypersonics - Prompt Global Strike Capability

It seems to me the issue with using PGS as deterence against an organized rogue nuclear power actually about to use its nuclear weapons are:

1. If the rogue power deploys its nuclear weapon on road mobile TELs, prompt global strike won't be prompt enough. You have maybe 5 minutes, tops, between when the TEL stops and when the missile launches.
2. If rogue power deploys its nuclear weapons in silos, you will have little warning of imminent use, especially if the enemy knows of PGS and avoids tipping his hand diplomatically or through other advance warning signs.

The only time when PGS will work is if the rougue nuclear power deploys its weapons on crude, non-storable, liquid fuelled rockets on above group platforms. Then the preparation required would actually last long enough and be sufficiently visible for you to detect it and attack it in time with PGS.

Admittedly that is currently the level of technology available to North Korea or Iran should they want to launch a nuclear device at the US. But if they are contended with launching a weapon against a regional adversary, they can probably manage some TEL and either storable fuel liquid rocket, or solid rocket.
 
chuck4 said:
It seems to me the issue with using PGS as deterence against an organized rogue nuclear power actually about to use its nuclear weapons are:

1. If the rogue power deploys its nuclear weapon on road mobile TELs, prompt global strike won't be prompt enough. You have maybe 5 minutes, tops, between when the TEL stops and when the missile launches.
2. If rogue power deploys its nuclear weapons in silos, you will have little warning of imminent use, especially if the enemy knows of PGS and avoids tipping his hand diplomatically or through other advance warning signs.

The only time when PGS will work is if the rougue nuclear power deploys its weapons on crude, non-storable, liquid fuelled rockets on above group platforms. Then the preparation required would actually last long enough and be sufficiently visible for you to detect it and attack it in time with PGS.

Admittedly that is currently the level of technology available to North Korea or Iran should they want to launch a nuclear device at the US. But if they are contended with launching a weapon against a regional adversary, they can probably manage some TEL and either storable fuel liquid rocket, or solid rocket.
Click to expand...

There was an article I read that said the Trident re-entry vehicle could be made accurate enough that a silo would be within its 'non-explosive' crater.

So with silos or TELs (they would have to be parked somewhere prior to the order to disperse) PGS would be a preemptive strike tool in times of international crisis. You could also target warhead sites for NBC weapons prior to mating on the missiles. Dictators like to keep the warheads separate because they don't usually trust subordinates totally. Also this would equate to more aimpoints initially for the US or its allies.

It would be more useful to do this with conventional warheads than nukes where you would have to wait, probably, until after enemy use. You make a mistake and it is better to have used a 1000 lbs tungston rod than a 475kt W88 IMHO.
 
bobbymike said:
There was an article I read that said the Trident re-entry vehicle could be made accurate enough that a silo would be within its 'non-explosive' crater.
Click to expand...

E2/LETB tail kits would provide enough accuracy for a kinetic kill against a silo, yes.
 
From AFSC High Frontier, 2/2009 http://www.afspc.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-090224-115.pdf :

"Three warheads were being considered for a portion of the $100 million in FY 2008 funding Congress allocated for PGS and critical technology demonstrations. Textron System’s BLU- 108 Sensor Fuzed submunition, Sandia National Laboratory’s (SNL) “Rods from God,” and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s (LLNL) “Hell Storm” warheads were evaluated as possible PGS warhead solutions.

The BLU-108 represented the utilization of existing conven- tional munition concepts in PGS. The BLU-108 PGS warhead concept contains 10 submunitions each with four “smart” skeet warheads. The skeet’s explosively formed penetrator (EFP) is the kill mechanism of the warhead. The one-pound copper EFP, moving at hypersonic speeds, performs a kinetic energy kill of the target, thus minimizing collateral damage. The CBU- 97 Sensor Fuzed Weapon and the AGM-154 Joint Stand-Off Weapon utilize the BLU-108. However, Textron Systems must modify the BLU-108 for placement in a hypersonic delivery system, successfully demonstrating hypersonic dispense while slowing down to transonic speeds (350 - 750 miles per hour or Mach 0.8 to 1.2), and deploying its submunitions.

Both SNL and LLNL have designed a kinetic energy pro- jectile (KEP) warhead that delivers various sized fragments at the intended target. The characteristics of an ideal hypersonic warhead are quite simple: preserve and deposit the maximum warhead kinetic energy onto the target and maximize its lethal area across a target set ranging from hard to soft targets (i.e., a command and control bunker, terrorist training camp, etc.). Both SNL and LLNL have considered these characteristics in the design of their warheads with each having fundamental dif- ferences.

SNL originally designed “Rods from God” for the Navy’s CTM as a near-term CPGS solution. LLNL designed “Hell Storm” to be scalable and fit multiple delivery and booster sys- tems for the mid- to long-term CPGS solutions. The SNL design is limited to a KEP-only capability while the LLNL design has both a KEP and a penetrator capability combined into a single warhead. LLNL’s “Hell Storm” warhead provides greater mili- tary utility, because of the KEP/penetrator capability across the defined PGS target set. The LLNL design provides a uniform fragment distribution over a larger target area while depositing more of the available kinetic energy when compared to other KEP designs."
 
Meanwhile:Russia to Vet Hypersonic Arms in Mid-2013Jan. 24, 2013

Trials for an experimental line of Russian hypersonic armaments is set to begin in the middle of this year, Agence-France Presse reported.

Russia has resumed hypersonic-weapon development activities previously halted around the time of the Soviet Union's collapse. The United States is pursuing similar technology, which could deliver strikes over great distances in place of ICBMs. Meanwhile, Moscow is set to sell 36 nuclear-capable strategic bombers to China, United Press International reported on Wednesday. Russia would initially transfer one-third of the Tu-22M3 aircraft and then ship the remaining planes at a later date. The long-distance bomber would extend Beijing's reach over the East China Sea, South China Sea and western Pacific Ocean. Still, a number of specialists in China have voiced reservations over the planned procurement. The Soviet-era plane's delivery capabilities cannot compete with U.S. B-1 and B-2 bombers, said Col. Du Wenlong, an expert with the People's Liberation Army Academy of Military Science. "Chances for the Tu-22M3 to join the Chinese air force as a strategic strike bomber are not high," Du suggested in comments to Hubei TV.
 
quellish said:
bobbymike said:
From Boeing's website - Strategic Missile Page

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/ic/icbmsys/index.html

I have never seen a 'basing mode' picture before and while yes it is just a picture interesting nontheless.
Click to expand...

What is love? Baby dont hurt me, dont hurt me no more.

http://www.google.com/patents?id=IRMuAQAAEBAJ
Click to expand...

Looking at that patent I can't help but think, "damn, we sure like to complicate things". What's wrong with sticking it in a tube at the factory and cold-launching the damn thing like the Russians?
 
DOD Cuts Conventional Prompt Global Strike Funding, Eyes New Test The Pentagon has more than halved its budget request for an effort designed to strike targets worldwide in less than an hour, electing to beef up spending on intermediate-range concepts instead, according to budget documents
 
ATK had a concept some years ago up on their site for an IRBM. Something like three per D-5 tube on an SSBN.
 
sferrin said:
ATK had a concept some years ago up on their site for an IRBM. Something like three per D-5 tube on an SSBN.
Click to expand...

There was the 36" diameter Sub Launched IRBM (and even a land based version called the "Forward Based IRBM") both gone from the website :'(


Conventional Prompt Strike Plans Not Included In Subcommittee's Mark

How House lawmakers plan to authorize funding for a program designed to strike worldwide targets in under an hour using conventional weapons remains to be seen, as the House Armed Services strategic forces subcommittee failed to include any details in its recent mark-up of the fiscal year 2014 authorization bill.

----------------------------
Don't know what this means but hopefully it does not mean finding has been zeroed out!!
----------------------------

No Demo

The Air Force Research Lab's munitions directorate has canceled a technology demonstration for its High Speed Strike Weapon (HSSW) capability and is instead "pursuing an alternate strategy" for updating industry on its research, an Air Force Materiel Command spokeswoman told Inside the Air Force this week. AFRL announced the cancellation on the Federal Business Opportunities website last week. HSSW is being designed as an air-breathing, hypersonic precision round and is intended to improve the effectiveness of fifth-generation aircraft against anti-access, aerial-denial capabilities. Despite the cancellation, HSSW remains a strongly supported program, according to the spokeswoman.

--------------------------------

AFRL Flagship Weapon Technology Program On Schedule And On Budget

An effort within the Air Force Research Lab to stabilize research and transition technology concepts for the High Velocity Penetrating Weapon program has been largely successful but could be complicated by budget cuts.

-----------------------------------
It's like the 90's all over again EVERY defense article about a particular weapons systems includes some form of 'but budget cuts on the horizon will cut, cancel...............'
 
We understand nothing X-51 have a success and they cancel the HSSW who is the step after, what is the problem with new technology? since 2 decade we see no inovations and no concept falling in real life for what? where is the HTV-2 program new flight for futur? all of the hypersonic program are cancel program after program its very suspicious. How can you penetrate a high defensive area if you cancel all the tools to do that?
 
dark sidius said:
We understand nothing X-51 have a success and they cancel the HSSW who is the step after, what is the problem with new technology?
Click to expand...

HSSW has been cancelled, but the efforts related to it are ongoing.

dark sidius said:
since 2 decade we see no inovations and no concept falling in real life for what? where is the HTV-2 program new flight for futur?
Click to expand...

HTV-2x is succeeded by the new HX program.
AHW is also still ongoing.

dark sidius said:
all of the hypersonic program are cancel program after program its very suspicious. How can you penetrate a high defensive area if you cancel all the tools to do that?
Click to expand...

There is a long, long history behind penetration aids. You seem to be equating these R&D programs with something along those lines, when that was not a primary goal.
 
House Panel Claims DOD's Prompt Global Strike Request Not Sufficient

Posted: Jun. 13, 2013

House authorizers have expressed concern over a steep drop in requested funding for a program designed to strike worldwide targets in under an hour using conventional weapons, but they did not approve additional funds beyond what the Pentagon asked for. In the report accompanying its fiscal year 2014 defense authorization bill, the House Armed Services Committee provides the requested amount of $65.4 million for the Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) program, while noting the amount "does not provide sufficient resources to develop and field" the needed capability. This $65.4 million request for CPGS is a sizable cut compared to the $200 million Congress appropriated for the program in FY-13. Last year's request sought $110.4 million for FY-13 and $138.7 million for FY-14. Authorizers recommended $110.4 million in FY-13. In its report, the House authorizers point to March testimony by U.S. Strategic Command head Gen. Robert Kehler, who said this capability is necessary to provide the president "a range of flexible military options to address a small number of highest-value targets, including in an anti-access and area-denial environment." Kehler had said the only way to strike anywhere quickly is with nuclear ballistic missile systems.

The Pentagon should provide a more detailed plan laying out FY-14 goals for the program, including "a plan for acquiring CPGS capability with a specific date of initial operating capability and the date at which there is likely to be a material development decision," the committee writes, noting the Defense Department may be struggling to fully understand how budget challenges could impact different programs. A material development decision slated for December 2012 was canceled because of the need to review test data and consider budget pressures. Pentagon spokeswoman Maureen Schumann told Inside the Pentagon in April that the decision had not been rescheduled. She said the programs in this arena are event-driven and not time-driven. In addition, she said DOD is in the process of evaluating all acquisition programs and milestones in light of FY-14 budget adjustments. "There are near-term threats for which CPGS capabilities could be especially useful, especially with the proliferation of mobile ballistic missile capability, including involving regional actors, if it can be developed and deployed in an effective and affordable manner," House authorizers write. "The committee encourages the department to consider what near-term CPGS capability should be considered to meet these near-term challenges and it expects to see that consideration reflected in the fiscal year 2015 budget request."

House authorizers also want DOD to conduct a mission analysis of its cyber operations, which should address a recent Defense Science Board recommendation calling for the department to determine the mix of cyber, protected-conventional and nuclear capabilities, including CPGS, needed to operate in the face of a "full-spectrum adversary." "The committee is aware that the DSB concluded that the severity of certain types of cyber threats added further reason for a non-nuclear conventional strike capability," House authorizers write. "The committee continues to support expeditious development of conventional prompt global strike capabilities, as well as the supporting doctrinal and concept development to guide potential employment." The report language also expresses interest in seeing the results of a second test of the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW). In November 2011, the AHW, a hypersonic glide vehicle, successfully traveled 2,400 miles from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii to Kwajalein Atoll in the South Pacific.

Appropriators had increased DOD's FY-13 funding by nearly $90 million to pay for a second test of the AHW. Last month, the Army's Space and Missile Defense Command announced it intends to negotiate on a sole-source basis with MILTEC Corp. of Huntsville, AL, to support the "execution of AHW flight tests and technology development and demonstration experiments." House appropriators, in their version of the FY-14 defense spending bill, call for the defense secretary to "follow through" on plans to use FY-13 funds to schedule the second test of the AHW, noting that the nearly $200 million provided last year is "sufficient" to conduct this test. House appropriators provided the requested amount for the program. "While the committee understands the desire to have a possible sea-launched option, the committee is also aware of the growing possibility of near-term threats," House appropriators write. -- Jordana Mishory
 
Think Fast, Chief Says

The Air Force is likely to make a push in hypersonics to keep ahead of potential adversaries closing the gap in both technology and numbers, Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh told the Daily Report last week. “Speed really compresses kill chains and…real speed really compresses kill chains,” Welsh said. Hypersonics will “make decision cycles tougher for the enemy,” he said, and help make USAF’s non-penetrating bombers, the B-52 and B-1B, more relevant in a future fight. However, while recent hypersonics testing has provided “a treasure trove” of scientific data, Welsh said “speed costs us." He added, “It’s expensive.” Nevertheless, “it’s something we’re setting up for the future, and while we pursue it, we also need to do the right kind of investment in propulsion technologies that allow us to save money.” On the latter point, Welsh said, he was referring to the ADVENT technology program that will create variable-cycle engines able to sip fuel at loiter yet still deliver very high dash speeds. Welsh said he sees “no options” about investing in that kind of technology, which, if it works, would “save us huge amounts of money as an Air Force, over time.”
 
Navy To Test Sub-Launched Conventional Prompt Strike Technology

Posted: Jun. 26, 2013
The Navy is planning a land-based flight test of a submarine-launched system that can quickly strike targets worldwide without using nuclear weapons. This research and development technology demonstration is part of the Navy's contribution to the Conventional Prompt Global Strike effort, Vice Adm. Terry Benedict, director of the Navy's strategic systems programs office, told Inside the Pentagon Wednesday in a brief interview following a breakfast in Washington. This land-based test of the CPGS concepts would examine what the Navy would, if directed, put in a submarine, Benedict said, noting that a submarine launch would not be attempted during the demonstration. He said this was one component of the Office of the Secretary of Defense's CPGS effort and pointed to work done by the Army on the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon.

"We have a flight test planned in which we'll use the work done by the Army to a Navy size, and then we'll contribute some other technology demonstration within that exercise," Benedict said. "If and when national leadership decides that the submarine will be the platform from which that would be launched we'll have the confidence to move forward with a program that will execute that." The Pentagon's fiscal year 2014 budget request calls for a "Navy SSP CPS Variant Flight Test 1" to occur between the third quarter of FY-13 and the end of FY-16. Benedict said that language refers to the upcoming flight test. The Navy is currently projected to conduct the CPGS test in late FY-16, SSP spokeswoman April Crew-Kelly told ITP. Early last year, a Defense Department white paper on FY-13 defense budget decisions called for the design of a new submarine-launched conventional prompt strike option. The effort was presented as part of DOD's goal to increase investments "in capabilities that preserve the U.S. military's ability to project power in contested areas and strike quickly from over the horizon," according to the Pentagon's white paper. The Senate Armed Services Committee recently expressed concern about the Pentagon's submarine-launched CPGS effort, writing in its report accompanying the FY-14 defense authorization bill that strategic policy issues "have not been considered adequately." Senate authorizers want to prohibit DOD from using any funds in the CPGS budget line for "the development of a submarine-launched CPGS capability" until 60 days after the Pentagon policy chief provides a report examining "policy considerations concerning the ambiguity problems regarding the launch of CPGS missiles from submarine platforms." Lawmakers are concerned that a conventional missile shooting out of the water could be mistaken for a nuclear one. A congressional source told ITP that regardless of the CPGS flight profile, concerns about potential confusion still linger among Senate authorizers. "This was just a check to make sure all of DOD had coordinated on this," the source said of the language. In a January 2012 briefing, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey said technology changes would alleviate concerns that the weapons could be mistaken for nukes. "The technology and therefore the trajectory that would be required to deliver it, the speed at which these delivery systems can move [has improved]," Dempsey said at the time, "and therefore you can lower the trajectory and therefore avoid the confusion you're talking about in terms of it being mistaken for an [intercontinental ballistic missile] with a nuclear warhead."

Benedict said his office will support the analysis provided to Capitol Hill on this issue of ambiguity. "A CPGS profile is significantly different than a Trident or a ballistic missile profile," Benedict said. "From that standpoint, I think ambiguity is easily discernible from a straight ballistic profile." The Senate Armed Services Committee's report also notes that it is supportive of CPGS efforts because they could provide significant military capability. But the panel wants the Pentagon cost assessment and program evaluation shop to conduct a study comparing the costs and benefits of maritime and ground surface CPGS systems and sub-surface launched versions. "While the committee recognizes that significant technical development remains, it is not too early to begin considering the fiscal implications of the various launch mechanisms, including integration cost," the committee writes, calling for the report within 180 days of the bill's becoming law. The Senate authorizers join the House appropriators and authorizers in recommending the Pentagon's full request of $65.4 million for the CPGS program.
-- Jordana Mishory--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
That's the full story unfortunately. I was hoping for information on the missile itself whether it will be CTM or a new missile.
 
From : http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_07_08_2013_p24-593534.xml&p=1
Darpa Refocuses Hypersonics Research On Tactical Missions
By Graham Warwick
Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology, July 08, 2013

For the Pentagon's advanced research agency, blazing a trail in hypersonics has proved problematic. Now a decade-long program to demonstrate technology for prompt global strike is being wound down, with some hard lessons learned but no flight-test successes.

In its place, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) plans to switch its focus to shorter, tactical ranges and launch a hypersonics “initiative” to include flight demonstrations of an air-breathing cruise missile and unpowered boost-glide weapon. If approved, the demos could be conducted jointly with the U.S. Air Force, which is eager to follow the success of its X-51A scramjet demonstrator with a high-speed strike weapon program.

Darpa's original plan for its Integrated Hypersonics (IH) project was to begin with a third attempt to fly the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works-designed HTV-2 unmanned hypersonic glider, after the first two launches in 2010 and 2011 failed just minutes into their Mach 20 flights across the Pacific. This was to be followed by a more capable Hypersonic X-plane that would have pushed performance even further.

The original plan drew sharp criticism from Boeing executives, who viewed the proposed program as a thinly veiled excuse to fund a third flight of Lockheed's dart-like HTV-2, which they consider unflyable. In laying out its revised program plan, Darpa makes no mention of any political lobbying against the HTV-2, but acknowledges a third flight would not make best use of its resources for hypersonic research.
(...)
Erbland says the decision not to fly a third HTV-2 was influenced by “the substantial knowledge gained from the first two flights in the areas of greatest technical risk: the first flight in aerodynamics and flight performance; the second in the high-temperature load-bearing aeroshell.” Another factor was the technical value of a third flight relative to its cost. A third was the value of investing resources in HTV-2 versus other hypersonic demonstrations. “We've learned a lot; what is the value of other flights?” he asks.
(...)
“From the first flight it was clear our extrapolation of aero design methods was not adequate to predict behavior in flight,” says Erbland. “From the first to the second flights we redid the ground testing, and rebaselined the aero using new tools. On the second flight, the changes were completely effective, even in very adverse flight conditions.” But the modifications set up the HTV-2 for failure on the second flight.

“Changes to the trajectory made it a more severe aero-thermal environment than the first flight,” he says. “We have been able to reconstruct how it failed from the limited instrumentation, and the most probable cause is degradation of the structure. Thermal stresses led to failure.” While the vehicle retained its structural integrity, temperature gradients over small areas led to local material failures that caused the upsets.
Click to expand...
*Chuckle*
 
ISP said:
From : http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_07_08_2013_p24-593534.xml&p=1
Darpa Refocuses Hypersonics Research On Tactical Missions
By Graham Warwick
Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology, July 08, 2013

For the Pentagon's advanced research agency, blazing a trail in hypersonics has proved problematic. Now a decade-long program to demonstrate technology for prompt global strike is being wound down, with some hard lessons learned but no flight-test successes.

In its place, the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa) plans to switch its focus to shorter, tactical ranges and launch a hypersonics “initiative” to include flight demonstrations of an air-breathing cruise missile and unpowered boost-glide weapon. If approved, the demos could be conducted jointly with the U.S. Air Force, which is eager to follow the success of its X-51A scramjet demonstrator with a high-speed strike weapon program.

Darpa's original plan for its Integrated Hypersonics (IH) project was to begin with a third attempt to fly the Lockheed Martin Skunk Works-designed HTV-2 unmanned hypersonic glider, after the first two launches in 2010 and 2011 failed just minutes into their Mach 20 flights across the Pacific. This was to be followed by a more capable Hypersonic X-plane that would have pushed performance even further.

The original plan drew sharp criticism from Boeing executives, who viewed the proposed program as a thinly veiled excuse to fund a third flight of Lockheed's dart-like HTV-2, which they consider unflyable. In laying out its revised program plan, Darpa makes no mention of any political lobbying against the HTV-2, but acknowledges a third flight would not make best use of its resources for hypersonic research.
(...)
Erbland says the decision not to fly a third HTV-2 was influenced by “the substantial knowledge gained from the first two flights in the areas of greatest technical risk: the first flight in aerodynamics and flight performance; the second in the high-temperature load-bearing aeroshell.” Another factor was the technical value of a third flight relative to its cost. A third was the value of investing resources in HTV-2 versus other hypersonic demonstrations. “We've learned a lot; what is the value of other flights?” he asks.
(...)
“From the first flight it was clear our extrapolation of aero design methods was not adequate to predict behavior in flight,” says Erbland. “From the first to the second flights we redid the ground testing, and rebaselined the aero using new tools. On the second flight, the changes were completely effective, even in very adverse flight conditions.” But the modifications set up the HTV-2 for failure on the second flight.

“Changes to the trajectory made it a more severe aero-thermal environment than the first flight,” he says. “We have been able to reconstruct how it failed from the limited instrumentation, and the most probable cause is degradation of the structure. Thermal stresses led to failure.” While the vehicle retained its structural integrity, temperature gradients over small areas led to local material failures that caused the upsets.
Click to expand...
*Chuckle*
Click to expand...

Of course DARPA is not the only game in town. Two stories up the Navy is testing and AFRL has a fairly robust effort and both these exclude possible 'black' programs.
 
Does anyone know what happened to DARPA's "Integrated Hypersonics" (IH) program? Draft BAA was released a year ago, with release of the final one scheduled for last quarter of 2012, but I couldn't find anything about the program past last August. DARPA homepage for the program seems to have disappeared and the above Aviation Week article is a bit ambigous on this matter?
 
DOD Eying Sea-Based Options For Conventional Prompt Global Strike

Posted: Jul. 19, 2013

As defense officials continue work on a new weapon system for quickly striking targets worldwide without resorting to nuclear arms, delivery options from the sea are receiving a close examination, Defense Department policy chief James Miller said last week. "We are looking in particular at the studies of that," Miller said, referring to a sea-based Conventional Prompt Global Strike option, adding that DOD is also "looking in particular at boost-glide, although a . . . typical ballistic approach is also something that we would consider." Boost-glide refers to a flight path in which an engine turns off after propelling a projectile initially, allowing it to glide to its final destination at high speeds.

Miller said at a breakfast on Capitol Hill that at the moment the department has made no decision to go forward and deploy that CPGS capability, but he stressed the importance of the system. "The value of being able to get after a target essentially anywhere in the world in a 30-minute time frame is significant," Miller said. The department had previously declared a goal of striking a target within an hour, but a submarine-launched weapon could shorten that time frame. Miller said if DOD goes forward with CPGS it would be done in a limited fashion. "While there's great value in having that prompt capability, if you think about the types of targets that we might be considering, there [is] a limited number," he said. Early last year, a Defense Department white paper on fiscal year 2013 defense budget decisions called for the design of a new submarine-launched conventional prompt strike option.

Meanwhile, the Navy is planning a land-based flight test of what could ultimately be a submarine-launched weapon, Vice Adm. Terry Benedict, director of the Navy's strategic systems programs office, told Inside the Pentagon last month. The test would examine what kind of capability the Navy would, if directed, put on-board a submarine, Benedict said. He described the test as a component of the Office of the Secretary of Defense's CPGS effort and pointed to additional work done by the Army on the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon. "We have a flight test planned in which we'll use the work done by the Army to a Navy size, and then we'll contribute some other technology demonstration within that exercise," Benedict said in June. "If and when national leadership decides that the submarine will be the platform from which that would be launched we'll have the confidence to move forward with a program that will execute that." The Pentagon's FY-14 budget request calls for a "Navy SSP CPS Variant Flight Test 1" to occur between the third quarter of FY-13 and the end of FY-16. Benedict said that language refers to the upcoming flight test. The Navy is currently projected to conduct the CPGS test in late FY-16, service spokeswoman April Crew-Kelly told ITP. -- Jordana Mishory
 
With the Pacific re-balance, it is only logical that the Congress would be more supportive, of projects especially meant for the pacific threat (although not limited too)...With the willingness of the congress to digest an increase in Hypersonic Funding, its only a matter of time before the USAF (and perhaps the USN) actually charts out a program to do the same in a far more operational setting. Now the hot question becomes, what do they aim for? An expensive Hypersonic solution with Long range to be a choice for the 2025 LRS-B? Or a more balanced , less risky Solution that has a shorter range but is tactically significant (Cheaper, smaller, able to be launched by multiple platforms including UCAV's)...I would prefer a scalable weapons system that can be initially created as a FAST tactical weapon for UCAV's and Tactical fighters, and as the program matures you could make it even faster, bigger, more capable solution for your latest bomber. A 500 nm weapon, is a good start, this would allow the USAF and USN to target important targets over iran from stand-off ranges. For the Pacific a more capable system is required, which can be significantly de-risked, while the initial solution is being developed. The Russians seem to think we are Serious when it comes to Hypersonics and prompt strike, and the Aviationweek article (Waverider) seems to suggest weaponization is something that is seriously being considered. Although the past is rather gloomy regarding the START-STOP of hypersonic efforts, this time there is a Mission requirement that is blateltly clear.

What is going to be hard to judge is the cost-capability tradeoff that is made between Scramjet, and standard propulstion solutions such as those used by RATTLRS...

rattlrs-sled-test.jpg


High-Speed Strike Weapon To Build On X-51 Flight


http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_05_20_2013_p24-579062.xml

MR. BRINK: Well, I'm not at liberty to comment on what Dr.
Walker testified to because I really don't have a comment -- you know, I
don't have a copy of his testimony. And I'd hate to bring any of that
into -- say anything that might not agree with it.
I can tell you that there are a number of initiatives and plans
in the work, that none of it is -- has come out to what I'll call a
planned program of record where you could point to and say, OK, that's
the project that we're going to take and try and weaponize the X-51.
But I think -- what I'd like to say is that when you told me
about what Dr. Walker had said, I think we -- if we are going to work on
the technologies that are in the X-51, to start transitioning those
technologies to a more weapons-friendly design. So while, again, I don't
know what Dr. Walker testified to, I'll give you a couple of examples.
In the X-51 because we're a demonstrator, we wanted to use
proven technology to the most extent possible to help succeed in the
flight.
So the -- our engine controller, that actually is the computer
that interfaces with our guidance and control and our -- and our airframe
computer is actually the same digital engine controller that the F-22
fighter uses. It's a rather big box. It's probably 20 to 25 pounds.
And I believe it has way more computing capability than our engine needs,
but it did two things. It was flight-worthy hardware that had already
been through a very rigorous qualification program. And two, it was a
computer that the folks down at West Palm Beach in Curtis's organization
were very familiar with to code and work with and write the software for.
So we use that box in the X-51 and we continue to use it, but it's
probably a bigger box and a more robust computing capability than we
need. So if we could take a computer that would be much smaller, takes
up less volume and gets the job done for us, then we might be able to fit
more fuel into the vehicle. We might be able to make room for a warhead,
those types of things.
So that's, I think, where Dr. Walker was going to. The other
thing is, is obviously, the X-51 is not a weapon. So we don't have any
fusing on it. We don't have any sensors on the vehicle like a electrooptical or microwave or anything like that. But I think those are the
kind of technologies that we would like to start working on and
integrating it into a hypersonic weapon demonstrator down the road.
So I think that's where he was going. There is money put aside
to do that. I know that for a fact that there is a wedge in our
technology portfolio for that. So I hope that answers your question.
Click to expand...

http://www.defense.gov/Blog_files/Blog_assets/0315x51a.pdf

A Scramjet weapons system should be smaller in size, allowing for more range and would have the ability to travel at lower altitudes and faster speeds...Something that can Lob multiple SDB's or similar weapons would be great :) especially for KNOWN SAM and Early warning sites being set up or modernized specifically for A2AD purposes...We are only privy to the Un-Classified developments in Hypersonics, I refuse to believe that in the last 5 years, despite of having access to close to 100 Billion $ In black funding (combined) the DOD has'nt made leaps towards having a credible prompt strike solution, especially given the nature of threat in Iran, where the country is getting closer and closer to the red line.
 
Check the date. Already been cancelled. :'( And that shot of the submunition/rocket sled is ancient. Got that same picture from 2006 when it was associated with RATTLRS.
 
I know it has been cancelled, but that does not mean we stop speculating as to which capability would be the easiest to acquire, and what the cost-capability tradeoffs are given different timelines. The point about RATTLRS was to initiate a discussion about whether fielding a more conventional system instead of a much more complex and riskier SCRAMJET solution may be better in the short-mid term, especially given potential enemies like Iran. My question was, whether tactical flexibility should trump other design parameters, and whether designing a more complex hypersonic weapon for the LRS-B is better than designing a mach 3-4 weapon for UCAV's and tactical fighters (in addition to the bombers)....

The X-51 as a program is pretty interesting, Boeing is their, Pratt is there, Lockheed is there, I believe Aerojet is also there...On top of that AFRL and perhaps DARPA is also there....Its a program everyone is seeking claim to, perhaps to bolster their claim for a potential future weaponized program. What would Raytheon and Northrop offer ?
 
I'd prefer they went with a relatively simple ramjet solution to at least get us something. I thought the bending-body Fasthawk concept was brilliant and, being a ramjet, shouldn't have pushed the bleeding edge. But no, they wanted to go even faster and we still have nothing. Arc Light also looked pretty interesting but then maybe payload was too small.
 
That would be my approach as well, Try to get something into the field by 2020 or so...SCRAMJET can come later by 2025 perhaps...However we are only privy to the level of R&D and capability that is publicly known. There could have been design teams working in parallel in the dark, building up capability and finding technological solutions. While i do not think we'd develop a missile totally in the dark, however the capability could be built up in the dark and then moved into a full blown program when required, there is not shortage of Money, with the current black budget being around 30 billion per annum. Given the Moderate success of the X-51, it should not be hard to transition onto a more ambitious weaponized (or weapon oriented) program, and give it 5-6 years to show its stuff, something what the T-3 is doing for BVR missiles (Weapons to be test fired in less than 2 months). Given that it has taken the Waverider program, around a decade (8-10 years) to come to this point, the follow on program should take considerably less time, and should be a much less riskier proposition. A T-3 like program then could culminate into test launches for competing (or complementary) design teams by around 2020. From then you make your down-select and launch a FULL blown product development program. The 2025 timeline being thrown around for the Hypersonic weaponization, is probably not a coincidence for, that is the same time-line for the LRS-B. What is interesting is that the Russians, and Project Brahmos, have the same time-line (IOC 2018-2025) yet have not done anything close to the hypersonic testing that we have with the X-43 and the X-51. So if they are still confident about a 2018-2025 timeline, there's no reason we cannot do it, having spent the money, time and sweat into actually testing out technology.
 
sferrin said:
I'd prefer they went with a relatively simple ramjet solution to at least get us something. I thought the bending-body Fasthawk concept was brilliant and, being a ramjet, shouldn't have pushed the bleeding edge. But no, they wanted to go even faster and we still have nothing. Arc Light also looked pretty interesting but then maybe payload was too small.
Click to expand...

IMHO we have to include a full range of new ground and sea platforms that can carry short and intermediate range ballistic missiles like the now, either cancelled or at least off the Aerojet Rocketdyne website, Submarine launched and forward based intermediate range missile.

It might be a sea based solution as I don't believe the INF Treaty applies to sea based missiles. That said if you are pivoting to the Pacific the main adversary in that region has multiple hundreds of IRBM why go into the fight at a disadvantage. I believe I read somewhere that a decent sized missile with a decent sized payload could even be fit into the Virginia Payload Module although the cost to develop a whole new missile would probably be a non-starter.

Bonus would be the ability to target Iran and North Korea as well with something faster than a bomber and cruise missile.
 
Yes Bobbymike, but balistic missile must mean very risky with a possibility of nuclear response with confusion of this type of weapon. Darpa will work on tactical hypersonic weapon instead of global hypersonic, in the last iterations on A/Week a hypersonic X-51 like and a new hypersonic tactical glider, interesting, and surface and air launch.
 
dark sidius said:
Yes Bobbymike, but balistic missile must mean very risky with a possibility of nuclear response with confusion of this type of weapon. Darpa will work on tactical hypersonic weapon instead of global hypersonic, in the last iterations on A/Week a hypersonic X-51 like and a new hypersonic tactical glider, interesting, and surface and air launch.
Click to expand...

If the US had IRBM's and was using them against China for example I don't know who would be shooting nukes back at us because of it? Especially when you consider China has overtly said they will probably use hundreds of ballistic missiles against Taiwan and against our carriers.

We cannot respond because of some innocuous warning 'We are afraid they might be nukes' Maybe it is because they don't want the US to develop this class of weapons IMHO
 
dark sidius said:
Yes Bobbymike, but balistic missile must mean very risky with a possibility of nuclear response with confusion of this type of weapon. Darpa will work on tactical hypersonic weapon instead of global hypersonic, in the last iterations on A/Week a hypersonic X-51 like and a new hypersonic tactical glider, interesting, and surface and air launch.
Click to expand...

Not so much.
 

Attachments

  • CSM_vs_ICBM.png
    CSM_vs_ICBM.png
    270.7 KB · Views: 266
quellish said:
dark sidius said:
Yes Bobbymike, but balistic missile must mean very risky with a possibility of nuclear response with confusion of this type of weapon. Darpa will work on tactical hypersonic weapon instead of global hypersonic, in the last iterations on A/Week a hypersonic X-51 like and a new hypersonic tactical glider, interesting, and surface and air launch.
Click to expand...

Not so much.
Click to expand...
quellish - great post is that from a PGS study? If so is there a whole a report? ;D
 
bobbymike said:
quellish said:
dark sidius said:
Yes Bobbymike, but balistic missile must mean very risky with a possibility of nuclear response with confusion of this type of weapon. Darpa will work on tactical hypersonic weapon instead of global hypersonic, in the last iterations on A/Week a hypersonic X-51 like and a new hypersonic tactical glider, interesting, and surface and air launch.
Click to expand...

Not so much.
Click to expand...
quellish - great post is that from a PGS study? If so is there a whole a report? ;D
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • gregjones.pdf
    145.5 KB · Views: 34

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom