September 17, 2019

US Developing 3+ Missiles (eg. Pershing III?) - Post INF Treaty

Kingston Reif wrote an excellent article “Trump Increases Budget for Banned Missiles” at the Arms Control Association website, on May 2019 at https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2019-05/news/trump-increases-budget-banned-missiles. Parts (with some bolding and redding by Pete) include:

“The Trump administration has requested nearly $100 million in fiscal year 2020 to develop three new missile systems that would exceed the range limits of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty, a pact the United States [exited on August 2, 2019]

... The budget submission includes $76 million in the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Prompt Global Strike Capability Development account to develop a mobile, conventionally armed, land-based cruise missile and a ballistic missile system...”

...Defense Department officials told reporters in March that the Pentagon is planning to test [1] a ground-launched variant of the Navy’s Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missile that has a range of about 1,000 kilometers in August and [2] a ground-launched ballistic missile with a range of 3,000 to 4,000 kilometers in November [2019]. [Is this a Pershing III or extended range AtacMS?] 

...The officials estimated that the new cruise missile could be deployed in 18 months while the new ballistic missile would not be ready for at least five years....”

“...[officials] noted that there have been no discussions with allies in Europe and Asia about hosting the missiles. One official said the new ballistic missile could be deployed in Guam, a U.S. territory, which would allow the missile to strike targets in mainland China.

[3]A New, Third Weapon

The budget request also contains $20 million for the Army to begin development of a mobile, land-based, medium-range missile “that can attack specific threat vulnerabilities in order to penetrate, dis-integrate, and exploit in the strategic and deep maneuver areas.” The Army is planning to request to total of $900 million for the missile through fiscal year 2024.”

“...the congressional aide confirmed that the weapon would fall within the range prohibited by the INF Treaty. The Defense Department classifies a medium-range missile as having a range between 1,000 and 3,000 kilometers.

In addition, the Army is pursuing [4+] several other ground-launched missile systems with ranges that could exceed 500 kilometers.”

“Gen. John Murray, the chief of Army Futures Command, told Congress last September that the service is “looking very hard and starting down the path of hypersonics and then also looking at what we call the [5] Strategic Long-Range Cannon, which conceivably could have a range of up to 1,000 nautical miles.”

“...Several countries, including Poland, have made it clear that any deployment of the new systems in Europe would have to be approved by all NATO members...”

SEE Kingston Reif’s whole great article HERE.

6 comments:

Josh said...

@Pete:

The only INF violating systems I can find are the new PRSM (ATACMS replacement), which likely will have its range extended, and the Long Range Hypersonic Weapon, which will use the USN's Conventional Prompt Global Strike missile unmodified in a container mounted on a trailor similar to the Patriot SAM. I've not heard of what the cruise missile system could be - though as the BGM-109 test a few weeks ago shows, loading a fixed land based mk41 is eminently doable. So the 'new' cruise missile might just be enabling the fixed Aegis Ashore positions to fire these weapons, which they previously weren't able to do specifically because of INF. I'm at a loss as to any active ballistic missile program in the US - let me know if you find more information. And I had not heard at all about the Long Range Cannon. That idea seems bat shit crazy to me and I can't imagine what the purpose of such a device would be.

Cheers,
Josh

Pete said...

Hi Josh

Thanks for your comments on US missile programs now legal - post INF Treaty.

Regarding a possible US ballistic missile program, with expected range of 3,000-4,000km, I'm hoping the expected test in November 2019 will generate further details.

___________________________

On a "Strategic Long Range Cannon" Program with hope for range of 1,000nm I'm guessing this is a larger land based version of the (so far failed) US Navy electromagnetic railgun system (dubbed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Gun_System ).

Presumably both the US Army and Navy further developing and deploying railgun would produce economies of scale driving down the costs per round. That is below the unacceptable US$800,000 to 1 million each - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Land_Attack_Projectile

I think the long range rail gun project would only make sense if rounds were more like $10,000 or less. Otherwise sticking to missiles (with cluster and other munitions) seems obvious.

Regards

Pete

Josh said...

@Pete:

An Army version of the railgun makes sense as a SLRC project candidate, except that in the article I found it says that it is the 'same tech' as an M109 (standard howitzer). Also the USN seems to be disappointed in the progress and placing the project on a back burner. So it isn't clear to be what form such a weapon could take to have that kind of range while having normal chemical propellant. Perhaps a cannon launched hypersonic round? A scaled down version of the existing glider that gets it's initial acceleration from a gun instead of a missile? The only way that range makes any sense is if the round travels largely above the atmosphere (30-100km).

Either way I can't believe it would cost effective compared to PrSM, though compared to the LRHW (~$10mil) it might be. From the description such a weapon would be largely a static target, and I rather question the utility of that in this day and age.

Cheers,
Josh

Pete said...

Hi Josh

I think there must be a super-cannon faction in the US Army (as in the USN) who have revived hopes of a super long range cannon every decade since the 1950s.

But the sheer physical drawbacks of super-cannon seems to reaffirm the value of the broader following for tactical guided missiles.

Also the mobility problems hauling a huge cannon was seen in the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/240_mm_howitzer_M1 and

even more so thee 280mm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M65_atomic_cannon with deployment wound up early: "Due to the size of the apparatus, their limited range, the development of nuclear shells compatible with existing artillery pieces...and the development of rocket- and missile-based nuclear artillery (such as the Little John and Honest John tactical nuclear missiles), the M65 was effectively obsolete soon after it was deployed. However, it remained a prestige weapon and was not retired until 1963."

So the army super-cannon faction, prestige, and no-doubt arms makers want a revenue boost seem to revive visions of big guns every decade.

The cost realities of the Navy rail gun should be instructive for Generals.

Cheers

Pete

Anonymous said...

Barrel life is a tough nut to crack, may even be impossible given current materials, when we are talking super cannons and/or railguns. 300km to 1000km, it is a lot easier and cheaper to develop missiles.
KQN

Pete said...

Hi KQN

Yes barrel life and overheating are yet more drawbacks of supercannons.

I would also add other drawback may be no cruise-missile like capability for remotely guided mid-course corrections in shells and perhaps no sensors in a shells against moving targets.

Regards

Pete