Via E-Mail:
The U.S. Air Force will review industry input for the Conventional Prompt Global Strike (CPGS) mission in coming weeks amid congressional criticism that competition for the program to date has not been “meaningful.”
The Air Force request for information (RFI) covers the CPGS, a system designed to strike targets anywhere with conventional weapons in as little as an hour using non-ballistic, long-range boost-glide hypersonic vehicles. Boosted by rocket, the weapon would skip across the top of the atmosphere for thousands of miles, then re-enter and maneuver at hypersonic speeds precisely to a target.
But plans to develop and field the system have hit hurdles since the Defense Department specifically identified the mission in 2003. After a U.S. Navy plan to deploy conventional warheads on Trident II submarine-launched ballistic missiles floundered in 2008, the focus shifted to the Air Force’s conventional strike missile (CSM), which was set up as a successor.
This effort, supported by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (Darpa), is aimed at developing a hypersonic-glide delivery vehicle that can be deployed from a Minotaur IV land-based missile. As well as the missile itself, funding to date covers development of the Darpa/Lockheed Martin hypersonic test vehicle (HTV-2) and the U.S. Army’s advanced hypersonic weapon (AHW).
But following the loss of the first HTV-2 only 9 min. after launch in April 2010, and with apparent growing concern over the focus on flight testing of only the Lockheed Martin and AHW systems, the House Armed Services Committee took issue with Pentagon acquisition chief Ashton Carter. In their May 13 letter, Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio) and Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif.) say the focus on the boost-glide approach “may be unwise and also inconsistent with the [Defense] Department’s own acquisition policies.” The letter also states that “we have expressed concern about this program which led our subcommittee to recommend a 12% reduction [$25 million] in the CPGS program [for fiscal 2012].”
In his reply, Carter asserts that “it is my intent to promote competition in all areas of CPGS acquisition at the system, subsystem and component levels. However, the timing for introduction of competition is critical and will be based on matured technology demonstrated by flight tests.” Further, Carter rejects the committee’s claim that the program is “singularly focused. In fact, we are quite the opposite. We are maturing broadly applicable boost-glide technologies in all three concepts to facilitate development of potentially competitive CPGS configurations.”
However, Leon McKinney, president of McKinney Associates and a hypersonic technology expert, says: “. . . since when does introduction of competition have “critical” timing (i.e. you can’t do it too soon)? Obviously, there won’t be any real competition worthy of the name if it doesn’t come until after Lockheed and Sandia get all the money to ‘mature’ their technology.” Here McKinney refers to the contracts awarded for the Army Space and Missile Defense Command’s AHW hypersonic-glide body development, which is based on technologies derived from the Sandia Winged Energetic Reentry Vehicle Experiment (Swerve), the Tactical Missile System–Penetrator and the Strategic Target System.
McKinney also questions Carter’s statement that “. . . given funding limitations, the CSM is the only concept—in the upcoming two years—that functions as a system representative of an operationally relevant CPGS weapon system.” He says the Pentagon “deliberately chose to sole-source all funds to HTV-2 and Swerve/AHW; now they have the chutzpah to whine about ‘funding limitations!’”
To reassure the committee, Carter also says a Material Development Decision (MDD) is planned for the end of fiscal 2012, “at which time the Defense Acquisition Executive will decide on the nature and desired capability of a systems solution.” By then, the MDD is expected to be armed with data from a more successful follow-on HTV-2 test planned for August, as well as the first AHW test at the end of 2011.
The House Armed Services Committee, on the other hand, says it “is also concerned about pursuing a weaponized missile system, or any material development decision, before demonstrating that the technology is feasible. The committee believes a critical design review in fiscal 2012 for an operational demonstration of a conventional strike missile is premature.”
Now the Air Force Global Strike Command and the Space and Missile Systems Center have issued an RFI to industry as part of moves to understand the “realm of the possible” in preparation for Carter’s MDD event in fiscal 2012.
The Air Force, which seeks responses by the end of July, comments that as a result of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New Start), it is “open to concepts involving new boosters, both solid and liquid, and a reusable booster system.” The treaty places limitations on and allows inspections of strategic systems (other than nuclear) if they use legacy ICBM launchers or ICBM basing locations.
The Air Force is also open to “dispense or non-dispense concepts for the delivery of payloads to the target,” as well as to the use of forward basing for U.S. territories only, “as long as the system complies with all existing treaty restrictions.”
Boeing, whose legacy companies successfully flight-tested the Advanced Maneuvering Reentry Vehicle (AMaRV) biconic configuration in the early 1980s, is among those expected to respond to the RFI. AMaRV’s attitude was controlled through a split body flap along with two side-mounted yaw flaps. A fully autonomous navigation system, designed for evading anti-ballistic missiles, provided guidance.
The company says it has worked to “create a highly accurate, global-range, hypersonic strike vehicle suited to the [CPGS] mission. As the government moves forward with [CPGS] capability demonstrations and any operational system acquisition, Boeing welcomes the opportunity to compete.”
And let's get one thing straight. There's a big difference between a pilot and an aviator. One is a technician; the other is an artist in love with flight. — E. B. Jeppesen
