Prompt Global Strike Update August 2005 Col Rick

Prompt Global Strike Update August 2005 Col Rick Patenaude HQ AFSPC/DRM 0

Overview • • • National Guidance Prompt Global Strike Common Aero Vehicle Conventional Ballistic Missile Issues and mitigation 1

Guidance • • • Contend effectively with future challenges: • Traditional • Irregular • Catastrophic • Disruptive Projecting forces in distant antiaccess environments Denying enemies sanctuary Quadrennial Defense Review • • • “The defense strategy rests on the assumption that U. S. forces have the ability to project power worldwide. ” “…require the development and acquisition of robust capabilities to conduct persistent surveillance, precision strike, and maneuver at varying depths within denied areas. ” “…emphasis must be placed on manned and unmanned long-range precision strike assets. ” Nuclear and non - nuclear strike capabilities ICBMs Bombers SLBMs C 2, Intelligence & Planning Defenses Responsive Infrastructure Nuclear Posture Review New Strategic Triad includes nuclear and nonnuclear capabilities Range Global Precision Conventional 2

Prompt Global Strike (PGS) Mission Need Statement • • • Strike globally and rapidly with joint conventional forces against high-payoff targets In a timeframe reduced from weeks/days to hours/minutes Even when no permanent military presence or only limited infrastructure is in a region Regardless of anti-access threats In a single or multi-theater environment Analysis of Alternatives Determine the best method (means) to create desired effects: Responsively: hrs/mins Engage Globally: anywhere Lethally: precision Common Aero Vehicle Other Next Generation Bomber Sub Launched Missile Likely to produce… • A force mix • Not a single optimized solution 3

Time Sensitive Strike Targets Tae Po Dong Launch Pad “pre-boost phase missile defense” Study by ADVATECH PACIFIC found satellites vulnerable to ground based laser High pay off command control “pre-boost phase missile defense” 4

Campaign-Level Military Utility Two independent CAV Military Utility Analyses conducted using Do. D validated scenarios…results indicate: • “CAV provided significant military utility in a variety of scenarios and was the weapon of choice for a wide variety of target types. ” • “Results showed that CAV has value, not just as a “Silver Bullet”, but as part of a total munitions portfolio that cooperatively leverages each element” • “Force application effect significant and increases as Blue reacts to access restrictions: 7% - 16% improvement” • “Large CAV strikes early on [integrated air defense systems and high value targets]: “kick down door”” • “Red [offensive counterspace] is a VERY lucrative target, more so if no replenishment: ‘An ounce of prevention…’” 5

Common Aero Vehicle Mission • Rapid conventional theater support and global strike on time critical targets • Application across the spectrum of conflict CAPABILITIES • • One hour from decision to done, worldwide Variety of payloads 3 -meter accuracy Potential for in-flight re-planning 6

FALCON Joint Air Force/Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency demonstration program Air Force DARPA Air Force /DARPA Small Launch Vehicle Hypersonic Test Vehicle n Spacelift booster capable of n Hypersonic technology placing 1, 000 lb spacecraft development into low earth orbit n Long Range payload n 2 -hour launch from alert delivery vehicle n <$5 M recurring launch cost technology HTV Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle Hypersonic Technology Vehicle (HTV-1) SLV Hypersonic Technology Vehicle (HTV-2) Military Utility Analysis Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle n Space vehicle to carry 12, 000 lb payloads at hypersonic speeds n Aircraft-like operations: reusable, recallable, launchon-demand HCV FY 04 Concept FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 Design & Development PDR CDR PDR B FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 Flight Demos Flt Demo CDR Flt Demo PGS Ao. A 7

Conventional Ballistic Missile Booster Basing Alaska Vandenberg AFB Guam Weapons Minotaur III Minuteman Inert Mk 21 Triax PGSEV Mk 4 e 2 Peacekeeper CAV 8

Land Basing Attributes • • • Horizontal Coffin Key attributes of a CONUS-based system Prompt response Low cost to operate and maintain High availability…capable of 24/7 operations High reliability Unambiguous launch location • No co-location of nuclear and conventional capabilities* • Minimizes risk of misinterpretation • Clear intentions Best possible two-way communications… immediate, real-time, with immediate feedback 9

Overcoming the Nuclear Stigma • Precedence has been established • START declarations help Dual role nuclear/conventional weapon systems mitigate concerns • Build trust through B-52 SSGN transparency • Avoiding miscalculations • Need to ensure no surprisesshare Concept of Operations F-16 B-1 • Engage in activities that demonstrate capabilities • Participate in ongoing, continuous dialogue to share B-2 TLAM intentions • Mitigating measures • Develop Doctrine to reassure Field ALCM allies and adversaries Artillery concerning intentions • Build confidence through gaming and exercises 10

Mitigating Measures To ensure there is no misinterpretation of the intent or use of the FALCON/CAV programs (conventional vice nuclear), a credible “package” of tailored mitigating measures is required…elements of the package could include: Intended to represent advantage of trajectory planning (not an actual trajectory) • • Conventional-nuclear firewall Separate basing Unique trajectories and flight paths Cooperative signature enhancement Distinct CONOPs and mission planning Shared early warning and on site inspections Strategic Dialogue and advance notifications Doctrine, Exercises, Gaming 11