Home » Air » Air Force » How to Keep PGS From Accidentally Starting WW-III

How to Keep PGS From Accidentally Starting WW-III

by John Reed on September 23, 2011

Prompt Global Strike, the Pentagon’s idea for a weapon that can be launched from the United States and hit a high-value target anywhere on Earth in an hour or less has been around for a while.

Some envision this weapon as resembling an ICBM armed with a conventional warhead instead of a nuclear payload. This makes some sense — ICBMs launched from the U.S. can strike their targets on the other side of the world extremely quickly.

The problem with putting a conventional weapon on an ICBM is that nations like Russia might think the U.S. is lobbing a nuke the second an unannounced ballistic missile launch appears on their radar screens. Needless to say, that wouldn’t be a good situation.

So, how do you make it obvious that your ICBM doesn’t have a nuke on board? It’s all in the trajectory, according to Boeing officials.

Basically, a PGS weapon would cut a much lower and flatter path through the air than a nuclear-armed weapon, something that would instantly show other nations that this isn’t preemptive nuclear strike.

“This is a depressed trajectory and if your were to track [the PGS’] balisttic profile” it’s much lower than a regular ICBM, said Boeing’s Rick Hartle during a briefing on Tuesday at the Air Force Association’s annual conference in National Harbor, Md.

(Click through the jump to see the crude drawing he penned for us that shows the difference in the flight paths of a high-flying nuclear ICBM versus a PGS weapon.)

Furthermore, a ballistic PGS missile would likely be based somewhere like Vandenberg Air Force Base on the California coast while the nation’s nuclear-tipped Minuteman III ICBMs are all based in Wyoming, Montana and North Dakota.

“On an ICBM, they know where the basing is, it’s Montana, it’s North Dakota and if we’re looking at CONUS based [PGS], we’re looking at Vandenberg, it’s several states away [from the Minuteman III missile fields] so there’s no buzz on that if its coming out of Vandenburg and it’s got a different trajectory,” said Peggy Morse, director of strategic missile systems at Boeing.

The Air Force still hasn’t made up its mind as to whether PGS will be a ballistic missile based system or built on some sort of hypersonic scramjet. The scramjet could, in theory, be quickly launched from an aircraft, therefore eliminating the risk of it being mistaken for a Minuteman III.

Boeing is part of the industry-government teams working on both of these types of technology — the Hypersonic Technology Vehicle — 2 program (that’s tried several times to launch a long-range, Mach-20+ glider on top of a missile based on the Peackeeper ICBM — shown above.) and the X-51A Waverider scramjet.

Here’s that very un-scientific drawing showing the PGS’ trajectory versus a nuclear missile. The nuke is the line that curves high up what should be the Y-axis while the PGS is the squiggly line that stays close to the X-axis.

Share |

{ 89 comments… read them below or add one }

asdf September 23, 2011 at 4:56 pm

What's stopping us from putting a nuclear warhead on it, even a small one?

Reply

Enrico September 23, 2011 at 4:59 pm

Who knows, maybe something like World War III.

Reply

TLAM Strike September 23, 2011 at 9:23 pm

Not if they use PGS to deliver a devastating nuclear 1st strike that eliminates the other side's strategic weapons.

Great way to sneak one in:
"We are only using conventional PGS missiles!"
"Don't worry, we are only using conventional PGS missiles!"
"Don't put your ICBMs on alert, e are only using conventional PGS missiles!"
"Oops we lied sucka!!"

Reply

Cheesed September 23, 2011 at 10:51 pm

That's an incredible idea. I reckon nobody's thought about lying before. Good show. QUICK SOMEBODY HIDE THIS WEBPAGE

Reply

Jeff m September 24, 2011 at 2:42 pm

Speaking of lying, my best guess here is that 30 seconds of flight from a hyper sonic cruise missile testbed is enough to gather 100% of the data you are after. Most likely the full scale version is being built and the generals have their orders to start planning for this capability. That trajectory is not an icbm it is an air breathing projectile. To think that we built the sr71 ramjet in the 70s and here it is 2011 and we can’t build something that goes even faster? Nah im a skeptic of that story being told by black projects guys.

Reply

shawn1999 September 26, 2011 at 9:20 am

RS-71s didn't have great big explosive devices just under their nose cones.

blight September 26, 2011 at 3:47 pm

The SRs hit the engineering limits for largish aircraft. Modern technology would probably bring down the cost barriers (while increasing the paperwork barriers), but it wouldn't guarantee aircraft that are faster.

It would make the never-procured armed variants much more promising though…

jemc50 September 28, 2011 at 4:30 am

A-12s, SR-71s, and the three YF-12s were 1960's engineering. The YF-12 was a concept interceptor that had internal weapons bays.

Interesting, that the SR-71 was designed using slide rules and rudimentary mainframe computing.

PMI September 25, 2011 at 12:00 am

A 'devastating' first strike to eliminate Russia (or even China's) strategic weapons would require a massive launch of hundreds of ICBMs (both land & sea based) simultaneously.

The launch profile would look so different from that of any proposed PGS mission as to make mistaking the two extremely unlikely.

Reply

arty September 23, 2011 at 5:01 pm

Exactly what I was thinking. If I'm not mistaken, we used to have nuclear-armed Tomahawk cruise missiles as well. I guess the Russians can look at the trajectory and if it looks like a PGS, they can guess that it most likely does not have a nuclear warhead, but they cannot be 100% sure until impact.

Reply

tiger September 24, 2011 at 4:54 pm

Your right. This is the USAF trying to find a mission the Navy can do already.

Reply

Jeff September 26, 2011 at 12:17 pm

Oh yeaaaaah… its not as if there isn't redundancy between Navair and USAF… maybe one of those should be closed. (sarcasm)

In fairness the system goals would provide for a faster heavier payload than the Navy mission.

Reply

Charles Fox September 23, 2011 at 5:03 pm

A couple of bolts and about 30 minutes, I'd say.

Reply

tiger September 24, 2011 at 4:51 pm

A anti nuke Potus for a start…..

Reply

Mastro September 23, 2011 at 5:29 pm

Not a big fan- Russia might figure it out- but Iran, Pakistan, India, etc?

Too risky- just use a car bomb- save a $$

Another Military Industrial Money hole.

Reply

USSHelm September 23, 2011 at 8:32 pm

If your going to use a car bomb that requires agents and equipment to be smuggled into a likely unfriendly country (e.g. Iran, Pakistan, China, North Korea), and then the purchase of car which will probably leave a paper trail. On top of that explosives are generally hard to get and can be tracked if you use explosives made in the USA. Also there is the time consideration, a car bomb takes time to execute, and when you need it NOW you want something like a conventionally armed ICBM.

Reply

bobbymike September 26, 2011 at 3:40 pm

Iran, Pakistan and India are not capable of detecting a CONUS launch let alone respond to it, moot point.

Reply

blight September 26, 2011 at 3:45 pm

That assumes that the Russians don't release that kind of information to the public, or get on the redline to China, which in turn calls Pakistan (or Russia calls India).

Then again,Pakistan may acquire radars suited to detecting missile launches from their rival (and the same with their rival, India). There's no reason for Iran to not do the same either, especially if they truly fear the possibility of the United States using conventional BM or being caught in the crossfire of an unforseen war in the MidEast or AfPak.

Reply

MCQknight September 23, 2011 at 5:29 pm

Well, we likely wouldn't be launching just one or two nukes at Russia in a pre-emptive strike, would we? So if Russia or China sees us launch just a few PGS, then even if they did carry nukes their second strike capability would be almost entirely intact.

Now, if we were to launch a couple hundred PGS at once…

Reply

PMI September 25, 2011 at 12:11 am

Oops MCQ beat me to it.

Reply

Cthel September 26, 2011 at 3:47 am

The problem is the trajectory of a hypersonic PGS is not ballistic, so you cannot work out the target point until it enters its terminal dive. Couple this with the fact that you cannot be 100 percent certain that it is not nuclear armed until it detonates, and that's where the trouble starts.

Even if you only launch one missile in the vague direction of Russia/China, the leadership (i.e. the people with their fingers on the button) cannot tell if it is a decapitation strike aimed at them personally; given the general human aversion to dying in a nuclear fireball, they will probably decide to at least get their retaliation in before the missile lands, so that they can die knowing they will have their revenge.

This is perhaps less likely with the Russians, since the "Perimeter/Dead Hand" system would enable them to hold off actually launching until the missile lands. However, if they see 2 missiles, they have a dilemma, since one missile could be aimed at the leadership and the other at the Perimeter system.

Reply

Jay September 26, 2011 at 9:48 am

The "Mertvaya Ruka" dead hand system is buried under Kosvinsky Mountain. The comms are VLF through the rock, so can't cut them. The facility is likely hardened similar to cheyenne mtn. It would take more than one nuclear attack to destroy it and the guys under the mountain would surely launch before we got them.

Say, weren't we working on a nuclear earth penetrating munition?

Yeah, PGS is a great idea as long as we don't fire one at Asia…

Reply

dark sidius September 23, 2011 at 5:35 pm

The only way for prompt global strike is to develop an hypersonic platform.

Reply

J.R. September 23, 2011 at 5:49 pm

If you see a launch flare that isn't announced under START, and you own silo-based nukes, your options are

(1) Launch all of your silo-based systems immediately, and alert your mobile systems
(2) Alert your mobile systems and assume your silo systems are forfeit
(3) Collect the trajectory data and analyze it carefully. Decide whether it's a nuclear- or conventionally-armed PGS missile within 20 minutes. Cross your fingers and hope that they aren't targeting your command and control nodes.

It's a non-starter. Silo-based ICBMs have made any other silo-based asset a destabilizing liability. Until our silos have had all of the nukes verifiably removed, there is no strategic scenario under which a launch from one of those silos is not a threat to other ICBM owners.

Reply

Meanmartin1968 September 23, 2011 at 7:07 pm

What sort of accuracy would a PGs have? And what sort of conventional warhead? Pure kinetic?!? I don't get the benefits over hypersonic "cruise" missiles. Ignore costs, of course…

Reply

Cthel September 23, 2011 at 7:17 pm

At the moment, the big advantage that ICBM based PGS systems have is that they work, rather than being subscale prototypes that explode after 30 seconds of flight.

Now, if the hypersonic strategic range cruise missiles already existed as well, that would be a different story…

Reply

kim September 24, 2011 at 3:57 pm

Well, placing a few phone calls about the PGS launch shouldn't be too hard. I'm no expert on nuclear strikes, but right off I'd assume more than one missile would be needed when starting an all-out nuclear war, and it will take more than one such missile to completely cripple an opponent's command system.

Reply

@7thwave September 23, 2011 at 7:07 pm

My question here is why are we putting conventional weapons on a ICBM or a IRBM, or a SLBM? Some one is clearly smoking crack at Boeing and at Air Force strike command head quarters. Putting a conventional weapon on a ICBM is suicide for the USA…and would start MAD from the Russians. But yet, these fools are totally going off of the deep end. Prompt global strike? yeah right…..even launching a conventional tipped hypersonic missile or a scram jet and striking inside a sovereign country is a direct act of war that will be eventually decided by direct military action…invasion with a defeat, (LIKE IRAQ, get it?) or destabilizing a whole region. And that my friends is caused by some fool launching a missile to take out a HVT. Currently we are running predator strikes in Yemen, Somalia, and Djibouti. These are black ops controlled by a controller on a the ground. Launch a scam jet missile or a ICBM and you lose that control. You cannot call off the strike. And that could make a crisis worse than it already is…especially when Russia and China, France and Great Britain each have the capability to match our military missile for missile….

Reply

Nmate September 24, 2011 at 12:45 am

China, France, and Great Britain certainly don't have the capability to match the United States missile for missile. It's dozens of nuclear delivery systems for them, hundreds for United States. The US has over 300 Trident II SLBMs (downloaded to four W88 warheads per missile) and some 500 Minuteman III ICBMs (download to one W87 or W78 warhead per missile) I'm assuming you're talking about intercontinental strike systems, which would currently be limited to nuclear-tipped ICBMs and SLBMs. The Russians have the most ICBMs, the US has the most SLBMs. The Chinese have about 20 ICBMs and a few SLBMs, the British have a few SLBMs, and the French have a few SLBMs and no ICBMs.

Reply

FtD September 24, 2011 at 10:06 am

its not abot numbers, how many nukes you need to cripple the world? A country like greece can drag world economy down. Imagine a 10 megaton lands on wall street

Reply

Nmate September 24, 2011 at 3:49 pm

Numbers definitely matter. Why do you think the US and the Soviets built so many of them? Because attrition would be huge. There is a massive advantage to striking first, but striking first requires a high certainty that the target will be destroyed. Not the easiest thing to do with a small missile silo hardened to 20,000psi or more. That requires at least two warheads to give a 90% chance that the target will be destroyed. One ground burst followed rapidly by one air burst. Numbers are also of supreme importance for a second strike. A lot of your land based assets will be lost in a first strike, there is also a good chance you'll loose submarines. You also will want to have an arsenal left after the cessation of hostilities.

Reply

tiger September 24, 2011 at 4:59 pm

You may not have 30 hours to fly a b-2 or b2 to a target. You may want more payload than a tomahawk from a sub or ship. Basically the USAF missile guys are bored and want some action. Thus , this idea….

Reply

C-Low September 23, 2011 at 7:53 pm

I still don't understand how in a China/Taiwan scenario we don't mistake all those Chinese medium range ballistic missiles inbound to cripple all our airfields in the pacific and naval units in the AOR?

Mastro
What about India/Pakistan when those same MRBM fly towards say Diego Garcia or our air facilities in Thailand or the Radar and other facilities in Australia?

Why can we never do anything without unacceptable risk but everyone else can? Funny how that works.

Reply

Gregory Savage September 23, 2011 at 11:56 pm

Wish I could have given you 2 pluses.

Reply

blight September 25, 2011 at 10:21 am

Same.

Then again, that might just be why they aren't harping on the Assassin's Mace as much as they used to. They're not idiots, and they can get a pretty good idea of how we think by cultural analysis; we're not very secretive about it.

It's possible that within Chinese military circles they were motivated by Rummy's Conventional BM to develop one of their own. And other circles, better tapped into how America and Russia would react to such things push a separate agenda: A conventional fleet with advanced CMs, or they may opt to mimic PGS by trying to mate a rocket's first stages with a ramjet payload to strike at targets in the island chains. They still need GPS, GLONASS, Galileo or their own local equivalent…

Reply

Nick September 23, 2011 at 7:54 pm

The big IF here is that the trajectory is correctly interpreted, don't think that this couldn't happen, we've come pretty close to WW3 with trajectories that also didn't look like ICBM stuff. Read about Stanislav Petrov if you want to see how close we all came to being dead from a satellite launch.

Reply

Allen September 27, 2011 at 9:17 am

Petrov was actually the Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces Colonel that averted war from faulty EW satellite data in 1983, the Norwegian satellite launch incident you are referring to occurred in 1995.

Reply

hillchurch September 23, 2011 at 8:35 pm

No matter what, the scramjet tester can't fail and get lost somewhere over the Pacific before anyone can confuse it for a nuke.

Reply

Guest September 23, 2011 at 9:13 pm

Do a Google search on Project ArcLight. It occurs to me that the X51 Waverider is the first step in the development of the ArcLight glider. For more info: http://www.military.com/news/article/new-navy-mis

Reply

JRL September 23, 2011 at 9:13 pm

I'm betting that China can't wait to lend the US another hundred billion so the DOD can generate yet another Prompt Global Fiasco ala the JSF.

A few more of those and the ChiComs will be able to foreclose on 'their' new property and boot all the round-eyes out on their penniless keisters.

Reply

Maxtrue September 23, 2011 at 9:42 pm

I wonder why there is still a self imposed moratorium on the more obvious choice when confronting under ground facilitates. You put a booster on mass and fire it downward. That isn't a ballistic missile trajectory and is the best way to deliver an EPW with sufficient energy without resorting to a nuclear warhead. So how do you get a rod up that high? Ask Rutan. How do you build the driver? Most of the technology presently exists.

If the mass is made to split up over the target into spikes the ground will look like Swiss Cheese.

You can also use surprise if your delivery systems deploys maximum stealth. Cloaking at very high altitude. Waverider is another way for softer targets. If you could fit it in a stealth body, it would be a real threat for advanced air defense. Falcon has its place but only the first suggestion can zip through Fordo like a knife through butter..

Reply

FormerDirtDart September 23, 2011 at 10:09 pm

How do you keep PGS from accidentally starting WW-III? My guess would be a number of phone calls minutes before launch.

Reply

kim September 24, 2011 at 4:00 pm

Agree. And then use only one PGS only, which is not what one would use (I guess) when starting WW3.

Reply

STemplar September 23, 2011 at 10:22 pm

This hasn't got anything to do with starting WW3, this has to do with countries being concerned the US would field the ability to take out their nuclear deterrent with conventional weapons. If we can launch ICBMs with conventional warheads we could do just that, and that's what has Russia panicked, because at the point the US can do that then Russia matters zero in world affairs. What are they going to do? Not sell gas and oil to people and watch their economy crumble.

Reply

Cheesed September 23, 2011 at 10:55 pm

How could we do just that, again? I mean the taking out their strategic deterrent part.

Reply

Nmate September 24, 2011 at 12:50 am

Sorry, but that's a non starter. For one thing, counterforce against nuclear weapons with conventional weapons would be exceedingly difficult. It's already exceedingly difficult with nuclear weapons. Weapons having 120m CEP and 350Kt yields. How you'd penetrate the hardness of an SS-18 silo with a 2-300lb payload is a pretty big question.

Furthermore, the attack would be seen and Russia could still launch a pretty substantial portion of their land based nuclear assets. Ever heard of 'launch on warning'? It's policy. The US and the Russians say that it isn't, but it is.

Reply

Cheesed September 23, 2011 at 10:53 pm

Reference TLAM's comment above please

Reply

STemplar September 24, 2011 at 4:17 am

How pray tell do you think Russia justifies unleashing the end of the world over the destruction of some positions in the middle of no where?

The payload of an ICBM is also substantially larger than 300 lbs. The throw weight on a Minuteman III is almost 2500 lbs. There has never been anything mentioned we would use a Minuteman III either, a larger missile could have a larger payload. Traveling at ballistic missile speeds a simple kinetic penetrator moving mach 10 would strike with the equivalent force of its weight in TNT, which would be the equivalent of a 5000 lbs. bomb's HE payload.

Your CEP quote is also old school intertial guidance systems and we are well beyond that and the level of accuracy that could be designed into a weapon.

Reply

Nmate September 24, 2011 at 3:55 pm

Yeah, it's nuclear too. That's a pretty big distinction A 5000lb bomb with a CEP of 120m is laughable against a hardened missile silo. Even if you get that down to 50m, it's still a joke. Not to mention the real planning problems of launching a good first strike. Even then, the launch is probably going to be spotted long before the first weapons start impacting. There likely wouldn't be a distinction made between conventional and nuclear weapons in a disarming first strike. The retaliatory strike would be nuclear.

Reply

bobbymike September 26, 2011 at 3:48 pm

So you obviously have not been following advances in RV accuracy. Recently a Trident D5 warhead was said to be able to create a bigger crater than the CEP with an inert warhead so we are probably talking 10 to 15M accuracy.

Reply

STemplar September 28, 2011 at 3:54 am

We are far below 50m of accuracy, so a 5000 lbs isn't a joke, which is essentially why Russia is all assed up about it. That's also the throw weight on a Minuteman III, and it's an old, small system. Very simple to turn throw weight into 10 or 20k lbs. when you are talking about new ICBM systems we could field, and then I am positive that Russia wouldn't be laughing at MOAB/MOP sized weapons being lobbed by ICBMs.

Reply

itfunk September 24, 2011 at 5:23 am

Prompt Global Fiasco is a weapon system that can be made instantly obsolete by the other side simply declaring that they will assume they are nuclear armed and react accordingly.

In other words it's just another make work program for the aerospace industry.

Reply

Blight September 24, 2011 at 9:02 am

Considering we had the know how to deliver nukes in 155 artillery shells, the Russians can assume any long range platform is nuclear capable.

TLAM-A? Nuke platform, act o' war if any Tomahawk seen flying over Russia.
BMs? Act of war if detected.
PGS? Act of war if flying over Russia.

Reply

tie September 26, 2011 at 10:38 am

er… how would it not be considered an act of war if a present-day conventionally armed Tomahawk flew over Russia?

Reply

blackavenger45 September 24, 2011 at 4:39 pm

Why not launch cruise missles from subs or B-2s or just surrender and get it over with.

Reply

tiger September 24, 2011 at 5:04 pm

The USAF missile guys are bored. They want to stay in the game and thus came up with this.

Reply

Riceball September 26, 2011 at 11:13 am

I think the advantage of this system is that it would, in theory, take less time from the go command to launch than any other platform that we currently have. It all comes down to how long it would take to pull one of these missiles out of wherever they'd store them, get it down to the launch pad, and then do all the prep to include fueling, arming, and programming targeting data. That is unless the plan is to have a bunch just sitting on the launch pad, ready to go at a moment's notice.

Reply

michaelgene September 24, 2011 at 7:09 pm

As the ChiComs continue the investment of their US dollars around the third world and build up their global forces we lose the ability to hit anyone anywhere because they will simply will say any strike to "insert dictator" is a direct attack on ChiCom investments and will be seen as a cause belli, just as we would and have if one of our client states were threatened by China/ Russia …

Reply

Hou September 25, 2011 at 12:20 am

Well first thing the PGS is not for other countries but mainly for terrorists and high value targets. The US needs the capability to strike anwhere within a half an hour. We could use it against other militaries but that will be unlikely

Reply

Brian Black September 25, 2011 at 9:32 am

This is crazy. Spending billions of dollars on a weapon system designed for specific and unique hypothetical scenarios is crazy.
Developing a supersonic LAM in the Tomahawk class would provide much better utility in real world scenarios, would be far easier, and in relative terms would cost peanuts. US military procurement needs to reflect real requirements, you simply can’t afford this white elephant.
Developing this type of delivery system in conjunction with development of the US missile shield also destroys the US-Russia nuclear status quo. Crazy.

Reply

blight September 25, 2011 at 10:13 am

I've honestly never understood the need for global strike from a single launch node (Vandenburg?) We have SSBNs that could serve as launch platforms for this kind of thing; and Vandenburg used to have missile fields-which will not reassure /any/ potential adversary, which might be forced to assume that those "test" Peacekeepers launched every so often could be cover to hide a legitimate missile field, especially if we went closer and closer to nation-state war.

Something less ambitious that used one stage of a Trident to get to altitude before assuming a horizontal trajectory might do the trick.

Then again, this might be another GLCM/IRBM scheme to draw up arms control concessions from our enemies…but unlike GLCM, this isn't particularly stealthy. And it isn't much faster than a BM. So we're using this against adversaries without nuclear retaliation capability, at which point the "faster TLAMs" makes economic sense.

Reply

PMI September 25, 2011 at 1:58 pm

An SSBN launch is far more likely to be mistaken for a nuclear strike.

Having a single launch location also makes verification far easier. Remember that little thing called START? The Russians still get to make multiple on-site inspections annually.

Reply

blight September 25, 2011 at 10:23 am

Anyone remember the solar powered aircraft that was meant to have ultra-long loiter time? Wonder if persistent aircraft at high altitude would be an excellent place to hide PGS missiles: strike from any position in the world and not just Vandenberg (preferrably over the oceans away from ground radar).

Reply

Tim UK September 25, 2011 at 12:04 pm

An insane idea that needs to be estopped now. There is no target worth risking Nuclear War for. Pure Military folly.

Reply

blight September 25, 2011 at 12:38 pm

Lets abolish all weapons bigger than small arms in the United States, since almost any package that requires two people or a vehicle to fire can conceivably deliver a nuclear payload.

Let's see what military folly really looks like…

Reply

Ben September 25, 2011 at 1:53 pm

Tim UK = surrenderism and defeatism right up front.

Reply

Matt September 26, 2011 at 11:52 am

Ben= bankrupting the country right up front. Surrenderism isn't even a word, try thinking about the long-term financial and security implications of spending billions on an esoteric system while our country plunges deeper into debt.

Reply

bobbymike September 26, 2011 at 3:50 pm

As opposed to spending $5 billion on a high speed rail line from Iowa to Chicago that due to road crossings, etc. is slower than the bus service already in place.

Reply

Robert September 25, 2011 at 1:53 pm

I think we live in a different atmosphere now than during the Cold War Era. However that's not to say a PGS delivered to halfway across the globe wouldn't make several countries uncomfortable. It's just the relative assocation of ICBM type weapons with nuclear strikes.

It would take a lot of strict guidelines and more nuclear policy talks to get that one to blow over well.

I agree on part with Tim, just needs to be worked out with other countries to ensure no issues. Really big iffy situation though..

Reply

Guest September 25, 2011 at 10:40 pm

Looks like the differences in trajectories are only apparent well after launch. A bit risky hoping that other countries will just wait-and-see before doing anything.

Reply

Brian September 25, 2011 at 10:42 pm

A lot of people don't seem to understand this whole thing.

Prompt Global Strike has its uses. If we'd had it 10 years ago, we could have killed bin Laden and Saddam both without ever sending a guy overseas. This really became something they were pushing for when we launched a few tomahawks at Saddam and he was able to leave before they got there.

We already have a platform that can do that — the ballistic missile. The problem with the ballistic missile is that everyone knows we keep nukes on those. So if you try to launch anything on that, everyone will assume it carries nukes. It doesn't even have to be pointed at Russia. So if you're gonna do this, you need something that won't immediately make people think it's a nuke, something with a different trajectory.

Personally I think a Mach 3 Tomahawk would be more useful. We've got ships near every trouble spot in the world. We don't really need to be able to launch something from Missouri to anywhere in an hour when we've got ships everywhere. But we're going to be spending money researching hypersonic planes anyway. Those are a game-changer if we can get them to work right.

Reply

chockblock September 26, 2011 at 1:48 am

The best and cheapest bets are ship and airborne platforms. Russia and CHina would simply warn any nation we target and ICBMs are expensive.

Reply

Jay September 26, 2011 at 10:00 am

Technically you are correct.

However, the political purpose of this system is to allow isolationist politicians to withdraw our troops and assets from around the world. Thats why even democrats like PGS! The politicians will use a working PGS to justify slashing the navy and close our airbases around the globe.
Then we will be left with the idiocy of sending a billion dollar super missile to (maybe) kill some guys on camels, when a $500,000 TLAM or a SDB from a F18 would have worked – if only we had the assets in theater.

Reply

Guest September 26, 2011 at 2:23 am

Huh, here I thought depressed trajectories were ideal for decapitating first-strikes due to the reduced warning time. But we expect Russia to see a fast, low-trajectory ICBM headed their general direction with half the usual time to target and be reassured?

Reply

Shail September 26, 2011 at 7:53 am

I'm more curious about the PGS payload:
-a massive unitary type (greater than half a ton of explosive) ?

-a large penetrator (obviously we won't send a MOAB this way, but a ~5000 is realistic) ?

-a conventional MIRV type composed of multiple JDAMs,
a dozen or more SDBs,
or even creating some kind of SLBM-based booster that lobs a bus loaded with cruise missiles (anything SLAM-ER thru Tomahawk) into the global vicinity then deploying them throughout the area…

The various payload potentials here is very interesting.
Could we even see an actual decoy module that literally deploys dozens of those new lightweight air launched decoys (MALD types),
to trick an adversary into depleting their SAMs and AAM reserves?

I'm more interested in PGS warhead packages moreso than the weapon's flight profile…

Reply

CP950 September 26, 2011 at 8:20 am

I hope they use the ICBM platform. The tech is already there, a well as the crews and hands-on knowledge. Waiting for the scram-jet platform will be years, jeers, and millions of dollars away.

Reply

EJ257 September 26, 2011 at 9:29 am

Dr. Evil got this one right. Just put a freakin laser in space :)

Reply

Jay September 26, 2011 at 9:55 am

no, too much distortion when fired through the atmosphere

we need to put up satellites carrying guided rods. "rods from allah" – the ultimate phallic attack system.

Reply

PMI September 26, 2011 at 5:36 pm

Project Thor

Reply

Maxtrue September 27, 2011 at 8:40 am

I already asked this question in the first few comments here. No, you don't have to weaponize space to have an effective kinetic EPW technology. The fact that DT doesn't want to talk about this is interesting. 1. High latitude loitering platform (Rutan on steroids) 2. ablative-protected mass driver with self-guidance controls (not difficult) 3. Hercules-type 100g-force booster to accelerate mass towards ground (old technology) 4. drones at lower levels providing defense, radar and refueling (already the DOD plan)

Then do the math 5000lbs x rate for fall from 70,000 ft x boosted acceleration = ?% of a kiloton?

Reply

Lance September 26, 2011 at 3:04 pm

Just don't let the machines take over LOL.

Problem is that Nuclear deterrent is what the US needs more than dumb Army projects to deter Russia China and Pakistan/North Korea. The conventional forces are not as deter-able as Nuclear forces are for larger threats out there, but yes that means Navy USAF should not be cut as much as other services.

Reply

jason September 26, 2011 at 4:16 pm

I suppose there is no such thing as stealth missiles…

Reply

John B September 26, 2011 at 10:37 pm

The only problem is this opens up a precedence for other nuclear armed countries including Russia, China to do the same thing. And instead of using PGS equivalents, they can deploy nuclear ICBM instead, and claim otherwise. The countries which most likely do this would be India, Pak, and China against each other in that scenario, the US can be a collateral damage. Who knows what mad men can do when they launch nuclear ICBM. How about their version of PGS with nuclear tips ?

Reply

blight September 27, 2011 at 12:14 am

Once all nations pledge to use conventional BMs in their arsenal and reaffirm no first nuke, then what's really important is how powerful your second-strike capability is. PGS will disappear as a loophole-compliance technology once conventional BMs are accepted without the hair-trigger risks.

Reply

Elijah September 28, 2011 at 6:54 am

Give and thou shall recieve. What are we giving and who are we given it to.

Reply

Elijah September 28, 2011 at 7:04 am

In times past, say back to the 70's. Just about every investment the US has made in a muslim country has been taken from us. Just about every weapon we have sold to a muslim country has been turned against us. Are they going to pay for the planes with the billions of dollars we give to them? I just hope you guys know what you are doing.

Reply

John Rawlingson October 19, 2011 at 3:58 pm

Check out this blog on a similar issue http://coldwarcontinues.blogspot.com/

Reply

Blight September 24, 2011 at 9:04 am

What about a Walmart?

Reply

Jay September 26, 2011 at 9:30 am

Hire Mossad to deliver it.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: