Comments on: Prompt Global Strike Not Quite There Yet

By: StrikingHammer

StrikingHammer — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 20:12:59 +0000

Our govt is actively working all of the options mentioned above. They are putting more money into different baskets, but all of the projects are active. Supersonic sea skimming missiles, converted ICBMs, theatre-area weapons, etc. All of these systems are also having very intesting payload packages developed such as bunker busters, multiple warhead payloads, hypersonic manuevering reentry vehicles, stratospheric skimming vehicles like HTV, UAV-on-demand payloads w/wo weapons, the list goes on forever. If you were on the inside, you would see the work is urgent and the programs are many! Let’s Roll …

By: TB

TB — Mon, 05 May 2008 23:15:03 +0000

we could fly them as regular aircraft on commercial routes to have them ready to fly near trouble spots on a regular basis.
Aaron,
Someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure arming civilian aircraft is against the law.

By: Effeminem

Effeminem — Mon, 05 May 2008 22:54:23 +0000

I’m a fan of hypersonic drone bombers. They could be stationed at any of our overseas bases, have a small range and be less threatening than an ICBM. They’d also be cheaper and more flexible than suborbital bombers based in the US. The drawback would be that they’re more vulnerable to AA defenses, but would this capability be used against a target with robust high tech defenses? If it were, would we send it in alone and unsupported? If that situation arose, a high attrition rate would probably be acceptable. Hitting a hypersonic drone is a bit tricky anyway.
But as ohwilleke said, the decisionmaking process takes much longer than the actual attack.

By: Brad

Brad — Sun, 04 May 2008 18:37:55 +0000

This capability could recoup the cost of its development quite easily. Imagine if we could have snuffed out OBL (forget Clinton for a minute), or Saddam Hussein at the outset of war, or Zarqawi, hell, even Pablo Escobar (and conventionally, any regional commanders or missile systems).
This front-end capability could make terrorism extremely dicey. It could also have an extraordinary deterrent effect on any adversary. It is well worth exploring, and in exploring, well worth investing in.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Sun, 04 May 2008 07:30:17 +0000

how about atacms launched vertically from a converted commercial aircraft carrying a hundred or so. 766412.
we could fly them as regular aircraft on commercial routes to have them ready to fly near trouble spots on a regular basis.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Sun, 04 May 2008 06:27:54 +0000

picture a large uav. like the f/b-22 but without a pilot and set up for deep strike and capable of supercruise at low altitude.

By: Sven Ortmann

Sven Ortmann — Sat, 03 May 2008 22:20:03 +0000

There are also some old treaties in effect that limit the choice of weapons.
I consider this capability as gold-plated high end; it fits into the region where small capability increases cost a fortune.
It would be a wiser choice to reduce the expectations a bit and use frugality in times of serious economic problems; a weak industry and huge trade balance and federal budget deficits.

By: Ed

Ed — Fri, 02 May 2008 16:17:19 +0000

To ohwillke,
Why do we need this capability? Because we don’t have space based laser systems yet that can hit a target anywhere in the world.
To Roy,
The Lance? check the size of the ATACMS missile. You will find an interesting detail in the dimensions.
Hypersonics are the way to go here, but also the test of putting a laser into a C-130, and not a targetting laser but one similar to the ABM laser, holds some promise. The hypersonic weapon would be safer to use given the standoff range.

By: Colin Clark

Colin Clark — Fri, 02 May 2008 15:34:07 +0000

Folks,
Given all the big brains we’ve got reading this site, I wonder if we can’t help the Pentagon out on this one and present come solid definitions of the capability.
Scram jets are nifty. Cruise missiles are cool. Hypersonics might fit the bill. But what would actually work and what would be a tight enough definition of the capability? Your thoughts please.

By: ohwilleke

ohwilleke — Fri, 02 May 2008 15:31:07 +0000

Why exactly is this capability critical?
No military in the world has the capacity to be closer to every place it needs to apply force than the U.S. military with its combination of international bases, unmatched blue sea navy, and air tanker supported Air Force.
A growing recon drone force, spy satellites, a huge intelligence establishment and a generally shrinking world with modern telecommunications and the internet also means that, on average, we have more advanced warning than ever.
The public accounts of short fuse strike decisions have indicated that the primary issue has been the decision making process, and not the technology to deliver ordinance to the scene once the decision has been made.
It is far more sensible (and less expensive) to overhaul Pentagon decision making, decentralize authority and clarify rules of engagement, then to invest hundreds of billions on pie in the sky technology that may simply extend the time for deliberation without changing the results of that deliberative process.
If there are blind spots where we need a prompt response, lily pad bases make more sense than hyper-sonic vehicles or new ultrafast missiles.