Army wants hypersonic weapons.

[MKSheppard]

Link

If the USAF is upset about the Army getting its own force of armed UAVs, what about the Army's bid for the long-range strike mission?

In the May issue of DTI I take a look at the Pentagon-wide Prompt Global Strike (PGS) mission, which calls for the ability to hit a target anywhere in the world within an hour of the decision to attack.

A problem is that one of the few ways to do this is with a rocket; but a long-range rocket launch looks the same whether the payload is a J-class guided bomb or what the RAF used to call "a bucket of instant sunshine." Since nobody is anxious to trigger a nuclear exchange, the various PGS concepts are designed to be readily distinguished from an ICBM.

That's where the Army's new idea for an Advanced Hypersonic Weapon comes in. The Army and its contractors won't talk about it, but AHW is a hypersonic glider launched from the Orbital/ATK booster that's used in the US ground-based missile defense interceptor. Using new high-temperature materials, the vehicle flies through the atmosphere at speeds of more than Mach 10. The system would be forward-based at sites like Diego Garcia and Guam to cover likely targets.

The AHW's big advantage is that its profile can't be mistaken for a ballistic missile. It's launched from a completely different part of the world and reaches much lower altitudes. Because it does not fly in a high ballistic arc, it also gives the target much less warning of its approach.

But the AHW resurrects a roles and missions argument that goes back 65 years, to when the German Army, with typical Teutonic logic, decided that since rockets were launched from the ground and hit the ground, they were artillery, and consequently they belonged to the guys in Feldgrau. So Wernher von Braun's A-4 missile went to the Army while the Fi103 cruise missile was developed by the Luftwaffe.

When von Braun and company relocated to the US due to factors outside their control, they were welcomed by the Army and essentially continued with their wartime development program. The Redstone missile was a big A-4 in many respects. But the last Army long-range missile was Jupiter, a von Braun-designed intermediate-range ballistic missile.

In November 1956, before Jupiter was deployed, the Pentagon decided that missiles with a range of more than 200 miles would be a USAF responsibility. Now, 52 years later, the Army is revisiting that issue.

[Nephtys]

What's exactly to stop a nuclear armed version?

[MKSheppard]

link

Army Eyes Advanced Hypersonic Weapon
InsideDefense.com NewsStand | Elaine M. Grossman | January 05, 2007
As the Defense Department is working final budget details for its fiscal year 2008 appropriations request to Congress, Army officials are eyeing $30 million for development and testing of the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon, according to defense and congressional officials.

AHW supporters hope it might win hearts and minds in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill as a future "prompt global strike" weapon that could attack so-called "high value" targets anywhere around the globe within one hour of an order to attack.

If AHW's Army promoters succeed in landing such a big budget in FY-08 for the missile -- one that must compete against other priorities as the Pentagon struggles to replace equipment worn out in Iraq and Afghanistan -- it would exceed the funds a skeptical Congress offered in FY-07 for an initial and more modest prompt global strike capability.

Appropriators funded development of the Navy's proposed "Conventional Trident Modification" -- which would convert a small number of nuclear-tipped, submarine-based missiles to conventional capability and give them precision targeting upgrades -- at just $25 million of a requested $127 million for the current fiscal year.

In theory at least, AHW might become a follow-on missile to the conventional Trident in the prompt global strike role. Congress gave the Army $8.9 million for AHW in FY-07, and $1.5 million the year before, according to sources on Capitol Hill.

Army officials hope the system could be ready as a "midterm" option, with perhaps as many as six missiles ready for deployment by 2009, officials say. But officials at Air Force Space Command, which is leading an effort to identify midterm and long-term alternatives for prompt global strike, reportedly are dubious that new technologies AHW must integrate can be ready in the time frames the Army has touted.

Supporters had hoped to score as much as $34 million for AHW in the Pentagon's FY-08 budget request, but may be limited to $30 million or less, according to officials.

The desired figures are based on estimates by the AHW program manager, Camilla Gean, that it will take about $40 million over 18 months to embark on the first sounding-rocket flight tests, according to one congressional staffer.

Gean declined to be interviewed about AHW until early this spring, citing a security review of the program.

A $30 million budget "gets us about 80 percent of where we need to be," the Capitol Hill aide told ITP last month.

AHW -- weighing less than 40,000 pounds and measuring less than 35 feet -- is envisioned as a boost-glide weapon capable of attacking targets up to 6,000 kilometers away in less than 35 minutes, according to defense officials.

"The Advanced Hypersonic Weapon is inserted into the upper atmosphere with a two-stage rocket, where it separates and hypersonically glides to a designated target," according to an information paper circulated on Capitol Hill and obtained by ITP. "Due to technical advancements in guidance, space-based infrastructure, thermal protection materials and kinetic-energy warheads/fuzes, it is now possible to develop a highly flexible, long-range, low-cost, strategic strike weapon."

The initial boost would get AHW to an altitude of about 300,000 feet, after which the system would glide en route to its target at approximately 150,000 feet, according to other sources.

Upon nearing its target, the weapon would be capable of maneuver -- an important factor to avoid overflight of third-party nations -- and would home in on its endpoint using a precision guidance system, officials say. AHW could be fitted with a 900-pound penetrator warhead or 900 pounds of rods to impact at Mach 4 speed, sources say.

The greatest technical challenge for the nascent Army weapon appears to be a "thermal protection system" that would allow the weapon to endure high temperatures as it flies at hypersonic speeds through the upper atmosphere, ITP has learned. It is unclear, in particular, if newly developed "TPS" materials can withstand flight at the wing's leading edge, according to officials.

The first sounding tests would be focused on TPS material survivability in hypersonic flight and recovery, using an experimental payload, officials explain.

If that first hurdle is crossed, flight tests could be conducted using a prototyped hypersonic-glide re-entry body. These flight tests would begin to incorporate AHW operational controls with the new TPS materials on excursions of increasingly longer ranges and in more stressful environments, as the weapon nears its 6,000-kilometer capability, according to defense officials.

[cosmicalstorm]

Wont other countries (i.e Russia) assume that this thing will come loaded with nuclear weapons aswell?
Especially seeing how its supposed to be a bit more stealthier than the old icbm's.

[MKSheppard]

Stealthier?!?! This thing will fly at Mach 10 at 300,000 to 150,000 feet. It's going to be like a frigging blowtorch from skin temperatures alone.

[JointStrikeFighter]

Stealthier?!?! This thing will fly at Mach 10 at 300,000 to 150,000 feet. It's going to be like a frigging blowtorch from skin temperatures alone.

And for that exact reason [and the fact that it can presumably manoeuvre at least somewhat as well as not flying in a ballistic course] means it should be one hell of alot harder to intercept than an ICBM.

[Beowulf]

Nothing prevents this from being loaded with nuclear weapons (aside from the fact that the Army hasn't handled any in years). However, if none of them are loaded with a nuclear device, then any launch of one can safely be assumed to be conventional.

Getting a weapon to carry a nuclear device requires significantly more C3I infrastructure around it, simply to ensure that it doesn't get launched accidentally (or maliciously, but without orders from NCA). If we don't put that stuff in, we won't put nukes onto it. And all other nuclear powers know this (except maybe N. Korea).

[Sidewinder]

I find the Army's schedule hopelessly optimistic. A missile that can fly at Mach 10 for distances comparable to a ballistic missile, ready by 2009? Unless the Autobots decide to help to counter China and/or Russia's Decepticon allies, you must add 10+ years to that date.

What's exactly to stop a nuclear armed version?

Strategic arms treaties. If this isn't covered already, you can be certain the Russians and the Chinese will demand one that does.

[Kanastrous]

I find the Army's schedule hopelessly optimistic.

Seems to have become typical, across a whole lot of services' acquisition plans.

[Napoleon the Clown]

I find the Army's schedule hopelessly optimistic. A missile that can fly at Mach 10 for distances comparable to a ballistic missile, ready by 2009? Unless the Autobots decide to help to counter China and/or Russia's Decepticon allies, you must add 10+ years to that date.

Well, that really depends on how obscene an amount of money they're willing to throw at it. If it weren't for Iraq and Afghanistan a lot more money could be thrown into the pet projects of various branches of the military, with a fair amount left over. I find 2009 somewhat (re: cock eyed optimism) unrealistic unless there's a lot of stuff needed to pull this off that hasn't been leaked or declassified. If that kind of stuff actually exists at this point, I could see a late 2009 for some initial tests.

What's exactly to stop a nuclear armed version?

Strategic arms treaties. If this isn't covered already, you can be certain the Russians and the Chinese will demand one that does.

Playing around with nukes, especially with the kind of capabilities the US possesses, tends to piss people off. The US is getting enough bad PR with the world at large, so unless we suddenly decide to try and overthrow a significant portion of the world (at which point PR becomes moot) I don't think it's that much to worry about, even with strategic arms treaties already in place.

[Ender]

What's exactly to stop a nuclear armed version?

Given the size of the missile, I'm pretty sure that any warhead we have won't fit. Most of that 35' body is going to be fuel, and nuclear payloads tend to be heavy. Of course, we loads up our surface ships with Tomahawks and those were designed to , and for the longest time did, pack a nuclear warhead and no one says anythin g, so I suspect that it won't be a concern now.

[Sea Skimmer]

What's exactly to stop a nuclear armed version?

Given the size of the missile, I'm pretty sure that any warhead we have won't fit.

What on earth makes you say that? 40,000lb is nearly the MTOW of an F-16 and 35 feet is more then slightly longer then a Tomahawk. Plus there is just no way a 900lb conventional warhead could be so compact that you couldn’t squeeze in a W-80 nuke of one quarter the mass. On top of that, this very exact same idea was already proposed, and almost certainly partly developed, specifically as a nuclear weapons platform, the Lockheed HGV. That’s probably why the Army thinks it can start testing so quickly, the groundwork has already been done.