Re-Imagining 'Prompt Global Strike"

[Doktor]

Why stupid? If you can't deliver, you can't toss ;)

[snapper]

In the Colonels terms even putting a B-52 into the air denotes a 'breach of the Treaty' and should be regarded as a TN strike by any foreign power. The use of a 'system' is taken to imply the ulterior motive... I do hope that this is NOT the case but this is the implication of our respected Colonels words.

This is absurd as these aircraft cannot then redeployed to maintenance shops etc and effectively the US may as well scrap them. The Treaty is therefore amount to scrapping this 'system'.

[Officer of Engineers]

Well, no. I said a strike. Merely putting them in the air does not consitute a strike. And like everything else, if you don't hit Russia, they couldn't care less.

Let me be clear. This is a bilateral treaty between Russia and the US. No one else is involved. If the US decides to B-52 China with conventional bombs, then while Russia may legally state that the US is using nuclear weapons assets against China, China cannot claim the US is nuking China. China has no legal standing in that treaty.

This being said, however, if China manages to shoot down one of those B-52s, the US is not allow to replace it with a B-1 ... which has been taken off the nuclear strike role according to treaty and now is treated and converted to a conventional role.

Yes, welcome to the wonderful world of nuclear arms control.

[snapper]

Sir, if Russia can legaly state, contrary to any direct evidence (presuming the system is conventionaly armed), that the Treaty is breached, at which point do they react? This seems the important matter in this insane Treaty; what is the Russian response and when?

I dare say there are good reasons behind this seeming insanity; I presume certain Russian systems are also banned etc... However to use a system conventionaly seems to an ignorant person such as myself clearly different from using a nuclear weapon. There would appear to be some ignorance of realities in this Treaty.

[Doktor]

Both USA and Russia are confident they can strike back even if getting hit.

I believe the Col explained that now both sides wait the nuke to actually make a touchdown before striking back.

However I am certain that if B-52 reaches Russian Airspace it will get hit ;)

[1979]

There was one at the airshow last month.

[Doktor]

There was one at the airshow last month.

[USSWisconsin]

I can see the reason for allowing the warhead to touch down - there have been satellite crashes, and even NK tests where RV's have been found in Alaska - of course there were no live warheads to explode. If they had launched a retaliatory nuke strike before these things landed and proved to be inert - we could have already had a nuclear war...

[snapper]

Ok so if they wait for the warhead to hit what stops these systems being used conventialy in other theatres?

[Doktor]

Ok so if they wait for the warhead to hit what stops these systems being used conventialy in other theatres?

The risk of loosing them ;)

[HKDan]

2,400 Miles in Minutes? No Sweat! Hypersonic Weapon Passes ‘Easy’ Test | Danger Room | Wired.com

Previous post
Next post
2,400 Miles in Minutes? No Sweat! Hypersonic Weapon Passes ‘Easy’ Test

By Noah Shachtman Email Author
November 17, 2011 |
2:57 pm |
Categories: Weapons and Ammo

For a test of a hypersonic weapon flying at eight times the speed of sound and nailing a target thousands of miles away, this was a relatively simple demonstration. But it worked, and now the military is a small step closer to its dream of hitting a target anywhere on Earth in less than an hour.

The last time the Pentagon test-fired a hypersonic missile, back in August, it live-tweeted the event — until the thing crashed into the Pacific Ocean. This time around, it kept the test relatively quiet. The results were much better.

To be fair, this was also an easier test to pass. Darpa’s Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 — the one that splashed unsuccessfully in the Pacific — was supposed to fly 4,100 miles. The Army’s Advanced Hypersonic Weapon went about 60 percent as far, 2,400 miles from Hawaii to its target by the Kwajalein Atoll in the South Pacific. Darpa’s hypersonic glider had a radical, wedge-like shape: a Mach 20 slice of deep dish pizza, basically. The Army’s vehicle relies on a decades-old, conventionally conical design. It’s designed to fly 6,100 miles per hour, or a mere eight times the speed of sound.

But even though the test might have been relatively easy, the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon effort could wind up playing a key role in the military’s so-called “Prompt Global Strike” effort to almost instantly whack targets half a world away. A glider like it would be strapped to a missile, and sent hurtling at rogue state’s nuclear silo or a terrorist’s biological weapon cache before it’s too late.

At first, the Prompt Global Strike involved retrofitting nuclear missiles with conventional warheads; the problem was, the new weapon could’ve easily been mistaken for a doomsday one. Which meant a Prompt Global Strike could’ve invited a nuclear retaliation. No wonder Congress refused to pay for the project.

So instead, the Pentagon focused on developing superfast weapons that would mostly scream through the air, instead of drop from space like a nuclear warhead. Those hypersonic gliders may cut down on the geopolitical difficulties, but introduced all sorts of technical ones. We don’t know much about the fluid dynamics involved when something shoots through the atmosphere at hypersonic speeds. And there really aren’t any wind tunnels capable of replicating those often-strange interactions.

“You have to go fly,” says retired Gen. James “Hoss” Cartwright, who helped lead the Prompt Global Strike push as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and as head of U.S. Strategic Command. “You have to open up the envelope of knowledge.”

Darpa and the Air Force worked on understanding the aerodynamics of hypersonic flight — that’s one of the reasons behind the ill-fated Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle tests. Meanwhile, the Army concentrated on controlling the hypersonic glider, and on thermal management. Moving through the air at Mach 8 generates a huge amount of heat. The military was keen to see if the carbon composite coating on the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon could take it. The last thing the Pentagon wants is for its Prompt Global Strike weapon to burn up before hitting its target.

Judging from yesterday’s test, it looks like the carbon composite held up. And so the plan to take out enemies from continents away just got a little easier to pull off.

Photo: Missile Defense Agency

[Swift Sword]

In a cost v. benefit analysis, hypersonic solutions to PGS might be a solution in search of a problem.

While the idea of PGS is a good one, perhaps the concept might be scaled back to better fit today's technological and fiscal climate.

How about giving EVERY manned and unmanned U.S. ISR platform an offensive capability? If a potentially fleeting, high value target is already under surveillance, why not have the option to shoot? The core assumption here is that if you now where and when a target is, things like time of flight and a whole host of other issues cease to be of concern. Such a system might be called PRS or "Prompt Regional Strike". Given the number of platforms flying, pretty good coverage might already be at hand

As to what weapons might be a good candidates, two considerations come to mind: make the arrangement as standardized as possible and as light as possible so as not to interfere with the platform's primary mission.

For larger assets, the GBU-39 looks like a good fit, especially now that it is being improved to hit moving targets.

For smaller platforms, the Griffin STB looks attractive at fifteen pounds or if weight is really getting tight, perhaps the 81 mm RCFC air dropped mortar shell would be a good choice. MBDA has some nifty, teeny, tiny missles in the pipeline and the Viper is out there but it might be a little heavy for what I have in mind.

Moving forward, sensors are becoming better, lighter and cheaper. Taking advantage of scale economics, perhaps a semi disposable ISR UCAV might be developed with a warhead built in so it could be used to suicide attack a target that might not present itself again. Large numbers of such critters combined with swarming tactics would provide good coverage with the ability to do post strike recon and rapid follow up strikes if neccessary.

The gist of PRS would be that every platform that snoops could also poop on demand.

Thoughts?

William