Russian Fear of U.S.

Hypersonic Missiles
Threatens New Arms Race
By Matthew Bodner
Feb. 12 2015 20:13
Last edited 20:13

Yevgeny Stetsko / VedomostiAnother piece of the Russian hypersonic puzzle may have been unveiled last week, when President Vladimir Putin signed an
order uniting Russia's largest defense contractor, the Almaz-Antey air-defense concern, with several smaller military space firms.

While conflict between the United States and Russia over Ukraine has raised talk of a new Cold War, another
feature of that era has also begun to re-emerge the missile race.

A new arms rivalry between Russia and the United States is heating up as the two major military powers rush
to develop a new class of hypersonic, non-nuclear missiles that can strike any target on the globe within one hour
of launch with devastating accuracy.

The United States is leading the chase for the new weapons, which Russia firmly believes poses a significant threat
to its own nuclear missile forces.

"Russia considers this trend as a path to obtaining [non-nuclear] means of depriving Russia of its deterrent
capability," Dr. Eugene Miasnikov, director of the Moscow-based Center for Arms Control, Energy
and Environmental Studies told The Moscow Times.

Russia's sensitivity to threats to its nuclear deterrence could lead it to mistake a hypersonic missile launch as
the opening moves of a larger attack, some analysts say, arguing that the weapons are so destabilizing that their mere
development could spark a nuclear war between major powers.

Hypersonic Weapons 101

Hypersonic missiles are being developed in the United States as part of the Conventional Prompt Global Strike
program, a loosely defined Department of Defense initiative to develop the capability to accurately hit targets with
non-nuclear intercontinental missiles in record time.

The idea has its roots in U.S. post-9/11 counter-terrorism strategy, when the United States decided it needed
the capability to hit targets as soon as they had been located.

To date, a reported $1 billion has been spent on the Conventional Prompt Global Strike program. A few billion
dollars more would likely be needed to attain true hypersonic capability, according to James Acton, a senior
associate in the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The most prominent example of hypersonic weapons currently in development are so-called "boost-glide" weapons.

These are missiles that, instead of arcing into space before coming down on their target, are fired at a shallow
trajectory that barely exits the atmosphere. After reaching a hypersonic speed, the missile's warhead is released
and glides the rest of the way to its objective.
 As the weapon begins to glide, its relatively shallow angle of approach makes it extremely difficult to track
and defend against a detail Russia's leadership finds troubling.

Prompt Global Strike

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prompt Global Strike (PGS) is a United States military effort to develop a system that can deliver
a precision-guidedconventional weapon airstrike anywhere in the world within one hour,[1][2] in a
similar manner to a nuclear ICBM. Such a weapon would allow the United States to respond far
more swiftly to emerging threats than is possible with conventional forces. A PGS system could also
be useful during a nuclear conflict, potentially replacing the use of nuclear weapons against 30
percent of targets.[3] The PGS program encompasses numerous established and emerging
technologies, including conventional surface-launched rockets and air- and submarine-
launched hypersonic missiles, although no specific PGS system has yet been finalized as of 2015.

Contents
[hide]

1 System
2 Development history
o 2.1 Background
o 2.2 Advanced Hypersonic Weapon
o 2.3 Submarine option
3 Foreign responses
o 3.1 Russia
o 3.2 China
4 See also
5 References
6 External links

System[edit]
The PGS system is intended to complement existing American rapid-response forces, such as
Forward Deployed Forces,Air Expeditionary Groups (which can deploy within 48 hours) and carrier
battle groups (which can respond within 96 hours).[4] Possible delivery systems for PGS warheads
include:

a rocket similar to existing ICBMs, launched from land or via submarine

an air-launched hypersonic cruise missile, such as the Boeing X-51 or Advanced Hypersonic
Weapon
a kinetic weapon launched from an orbiting space platform
In 2010, the United States Air Force prototyped a PGS system based on a modified Minuteman
III ICBM.[5] In March 2011, Air Force Major General David Scott stated that the service had no plans
to use a sea- or land-based ICBM system for Prompt Global Strike, as they would be expensive to
develop and potentially "dangerous." Instead, efforts would focus on ahypersonic glider.[6] However,
the following day, Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz said that an ICBM-based PGS system
was still an option.[7]

Development history[edit]
Background[edit]
The George W. Bush administration considered developing such a weapon in the 2000s, in the form
of DARPA's Falcon Project.[8] The Bush administration ultimately rejected the idea of a PGS system
because of fears that an ICBM-launched weapon would trigger the Russian nuclear-launch warning
system, potentially provoking a nuclear war.[9] However, theObama administration continued
development of the system later in the decade. In April 2010, Marine Corps GeneralJames
Cartwright explained the system's rationale, stating that "Today, unless you want to go nuclear, [the
conventional military response time is] measured in days, maybe weeks".[5]
A potential enemy cannot be certain that a launched ICBM contains only a conventional warhead,
not a nuclear one. It is thus currently unclear what design features or precautions could
convince China and Russia, two countries with advanced launch-detection systems and nuclear
ICBMs, to ignore their early-warning systems. Current ideas include a low-trajectory missile design,
or allowing Russian and Chinese inspection of PGS missile sites.[5][4]
On 11 April 2010, United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates indicated that the United States
already had a Prompt Global Strike capability.[10] This coincided with the New START disarmament
treaty signed on 8 April 2010, which set new, lower limits on arsenals of ballistic missiles and their
warheads. The treaty does not distinguish between conventional and nuclear versions of weapons,
meaning any ballistic PGS missiles and warheads would count toward the new limit. However,
the U.S. State Department stated in 2010 that this would not constrain plans for PGS deployment,
since plans for the system at that time did not come near the New START limits.[11]
Advanced Hypersonic Weapon[edit]
On 18 November 2011, the first Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW) glide vehicle was
successfully tested by the U.S. Army Space and Missile Defense Command as part of the Prompt
Global Strike program.[12] The missile was launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility in Hawaii,
and struck a target at the Reagan Test Site on Kwajalein Atoll, over 3,700 kilometres (2,300 mi)
away, in under 30 minutes.[13] The prototype, which incorporated technologies developed by Sandia
National Laboratories, was used to gather data to assist the development of future hypersonic
warheads.[14] The AHW followed an endo-atmospheric non-ballistic trajectory during the test flight.
This is a crucial design feature, as following a depressed trajectory that is much lower and flatter
than a normal ICBM prevents other nuclear-armed nations from mistakenly thinking the AHW is a
nuclear-tipped missile.[15]
The second AHW test flight occurred on 25 August 2014 from the Kodiak Launch
Complex in Alaska. The mission was terminated shortly after liftoff due to an anomaly in the launch
vehicle.[16] Operators triggered a self-destruct sequence four seconds after launching, with
eyewitnesses claiming the weapon had veered off trajectory just as it took off.[17] A Failure Review
Board released the results of their investigation into the failed launch in early February 2015. The
board determined that an external thermal protective cover, designed to regulate motor temperature,
interfered with the launch vehicle's steering assembly; no issues were found with the hypersonic
glide body, booster motors, or the Kodiak Launch Complex, and the board determined the test range
flight safety officer correctly followed established protocol and procedures.[18]
Submarine option[edit]
Main articles: Submarine-launched ballistic missile and Submarine-launched cruise missile
In January 2012, the Pentagon stated that the PGS launch platform would be submarine-
based.[19] However, practical efforts to develop the PGS system were delayed by fears of accidentally
starting a nuclear conflict.[19] In February 2014, theU.S. Navy solicited proposals for two-year industry
trade studies to test the feasibility of developing a hypersonic submarine-launched intermediate-
range conventional PGS weapon. The Navy specified that the effort was a study to evaluate
technology options, not to develop a system-level specific CPGS solution. The Navy stated that it
would be interested in awarding one or two 13-month technology evaluation contracts, each worth
around US$5 million.[20]

Foreign responses[edit]
Russia[edit]
In December 2010, Russian military experts indicated that the forthcoming S-500 missile
defense system would include anti-hypersonic defenses.[21] In December 2012, commenting on the
development of a replacement for its R-36M2 Voevoda ICBM, the commander of the
Russian Strategic Missile Forces, Sergey Karakaev, stated that the missile would allow Russia "to
realize such opportunities as the creation of high precision strategic weapons with non-nuclear
warheads and a practical global range. Russia can create non-nuclear, high precision weapons
based on intercontinental rockets in the event that the USA also works on designing such a
weapon". On 11 December 2013, Vice Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin warned that Russia would use
nuclear weapons if it came under an attack, adding that this possibility serves as the main deterrent
to potential aggressors. Rogozin also stated that the Russian Fund of Perspective Researches (FPI)
would develop a military response to the PGS system.[22]
In September 2014, President Vladimir Putin stated that he considered PGS among several new
threats to Russia, along with the US Ground-Based Midcourse Defense system in Alaska, the Aegis
Ballistic Missile Defense System in Europe, and increased NATO activity in eastern Europe. On 10
September 2014, Vice Prime Minister Rogozin once again warned that Russia would develop its
strategic nuclear forces and aerospace defences in response to the PGS system.[23]
China[edit]
The Chinese People's Liberation Army began developing its own long-range hypersonic missile,
the WU-14 rocket-boostedhypersonic glide vehicle, in the 2010s.[24] The WU-14, which is similar to
the HTV-2 Falcon system, underwent its first full-scale flight test in January 2014, and conducted two
more flight tests later in the year, of which one failed and one was successful.[24][25]

See also[edit]
Air Force Global Strike Command
Anti-ship ballistic missile
ArcLight (missile), a DARPA program which proposed using US Navy ships such as Aegis
cruisers to launch intercontinental missiles
Boeing X-37
Conventional Trident
DF-21D, a conventionally-armed MRBM deployed by China in an anti-ship capacity
Project Thor, a proposed orbital kinetic bombardment weapon

References[edit]
1. Jump up^ Grossman, Elaine (8 April 2006). "Air Force Proposes New Strike Missile". Military.com. Retrieved 2
February 2012.
 2. Jump up^ "In the works: A missile to hit anywhere in 1 hr". The Times Of India. 2 April 2010. Retrieved 18
June 2013.
3. Jump up^ "Talks at U.S. Strategic Command and University of California San Diego". Federation of American
Scientists. 12 August 2012. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
4. ^ Jump up to:a b David E. Sanger; Thom Shanker (28 February 2010). "White House Is Rethinking Nuclear
Policy". The New York Times(New York, NY). Retrieved 8 April 2010.
5. ^ Jump up to:a b c Craig Whitlock (8 April 2010). "U.S. looks to nonnuclear weapons to use as deterrent". The
Washington Post. Retrieved8 April 2010.
6. Jump up^ "Prompt Global Strike Won't Use ICBMs." Defense News.[dead link]
7. Jump up^ "Conventional ICBM Still an Option: Schwartz." Defense News.[dead link]
8. Jump up^ "Defense bill provides $100M for FALCON hypersonic cruise vehicle - UPDATED". Air-Attack.com. 12
November 2007. Retrieved 2 February 2012.
9. Jump up^ "U.S. Faces Choice on New Weapons for Fast Strikes". New York Times. 23 April 2010. Retrieved 27
November 2011.
10. Jump up^ "'Meet the Press' transcript". MSNBC. 11 April 2010. Retrieved 18 June 2013. And we have prompt
global strike affording us some conventional alternatives on long-range missiles that we didn't have before
11. Jump up^ "Conventional Prompt Global Strike". U.S. State Department. 8 April 2010. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
12. Jump up^ "AHW". GlobalSecurity.org. 23 November 2011. Retrieved 3 March 2015.
13. Jump up^ "Pentagon tests long-range hypersonic weapon". BBC News. 18 November 2011. Retrieved 19
November 2011.
14. Jump up^ "Army successfully launches Advanced Hypersonic Weapon demonstrator". Fort Gordon Signal. 2
December 2011. Retrieved29 December 2011.
15. Jump up^ "Army Successfully Tests Hypersonic Weapon Design". DefenseTech.org. 17 November 2011.
Retrieved 3 March 2015.
16. Jump up^ Gertz, Bill (25 August 2014). "Army Hypersonic Missile Fails in Second Test". The Washington Free
Beacon. Retrieved25 August 2014.
17. Jump up^ "Army's hypersonic missile fails during test". MilitaryTimes.com. 25 August 2014. Retrieved 3
March 2015.
18. Jump up^ "Launch vehicle support equipment causes test failure". Army.mil. 5 February 2015. Retrieved 3
March 2015.
19. ^ Jump up to:a b "Pentagon's Global Strike Weapon Stuck In Limbo; Congress Fears Accidental WWIII". AOL
Defense. 17 December 2012. Retrieved 12 December 2012.
20. Jump up^ "US Navy Explores Sub-Launched Hypersonic Missiles". TheDiplomat.com. 4 February 2014.
Retrieved 3 March 2015.
21. Jump up^ Balmasov, Sergei (17 December 2010). "Will S-500 system be good against Minotaur IV?". Pravda.
Retrieved 9 March 2013.
22. Jump up^ "Russia designs new types of intercontinental missiles". Space Daily. 31 December 2012. Retrieved 8
January 2013.
23. Jump up^ "Russia to boost nuclear, space defence forces against US". Space Daily. 10 September 2014.
Retrieved 3 March 2015.
24. ^ Jump up to:a b "China-U.S. Hypersonic Arms Race Is Having a Little Trouble". Defence One. 27 August 2014.
Retrieved 5 March 2015.
25. Jump up^ "OFFSET THIS! CHINA'S HYPERSONIC GLIDER FLIES FOR THE THIRD TIME THIS
YEAR". Popular Science. 9 December 2014. Retrieved 5 March 2015.

External links[edit]
"Conventional Prompt Global Strike and Long-Range Ballistic Missiles: Background and Issues"
(PDF). Congressional Research Service.
"U.S. Looks To Non-Nuclear Weapons To Use As Deterrent". Washington Post. 8 April 2010.
"Why Do We Need Hypersonic Strike Weapons, Exactly?". Defense One.

Lockheed Martin

A computer rendering of a U.S. hypersonic test vehicle. The missile's casing is falling away to allow the black warhead to detach and plunge back

into the earth's atmosphere.

Russian Answer
While hypersonic weapons are still in the development phase, they have already raised the prospect that Russia
might pull out of Cold War nuclear arms treaties with the United States.

President Vladimir Putin in 2013 warned that the hypersonic missile development "could negate all previous
agreements on the limitation and reduction of strategic nuclear weapons, thereby disrupting the strategic balance
of power."

Nuclear arms control agreements between Russia and the United States have only gotten shakier since then.

In July of last year, amid the tensions of the Ukraine crisis, Washington suggested Moscow had violated the 1987
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), which bans an entire class of nuclear missiles.

In October, Putin told Serbian newspaper Politika that he considered Western sanctions over Ukraine an attempt
to "blackmail Russia" and that the West should "remember the risks that a spat between major nuclear powers incurs
for strategic stability," news agency Reuters reported.

Little information is available on the state of Russia's domestic hypersonic program, but the head of Russia's
Tactical Missiles Corporation, Boris Obnosov, said last year the company is working with dozens of firms
to implement a development program for a hypersonic missile. The Tactical Missiles Cooperation produces many
of Russia's guided missile systems.

Another piece of the Russian hypersonic puzzle may have been unveiled last week, when President Vladimir Putin
signed an order uniting Russia's largest defense contractor, the Almaz-Antey air-defense concern, with several
smaller military space firms.

Though not directly related to the development of hypersonic missiles, the move might signal a greater focus
on developing defense against the weapons.

Almaz-Antey did not respond to a request for comment.

Moscow's Fears
The United States seems so far to have failed to allay Moscow's fears that the missiles are being developed to target
Russia rather than terrorist hideouts, said Carnegie's Acton.

Moscow has already worked hypersonic missiles into its long-standing grievances against the United States
including NATO expansion and the placement of missile defense systems in Europe.

"My biggest concern is that Russia will mistake a U.S. [hypersonic] attack against a neighboring state as an attack
against Russia," said Acton.
 Because the weapons do not follow ballistic trajectories, but glide and maneuver their way to the target, it is possible
that Moscow would become confused about the missile's objective and believe Russia was the intended target. This
would lead to a serious escalation of international tensions, and possibly provoke a counterattack.

But now is a bad time for dialogue. In recent weeks prominent U.S. politicians have advocated arming Kiev against
Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine, raising the specter of a proxy war between the two former Cold War
enemies.

Miasnikov said that so long as both sides remain at odds, any developments in the U.S. hypersonic program will be
construed in Moscow as a threat.

In any case, the weapons will be inexorably linked to U.S.-Russia bilateral relations because the way Russia
perceives them to threaten its nuclear forces.

The Pentagon should work to better understand what it needs the weapons in question for, and present Russia with
concrete proposals to mitigate the risk in deploying them, according to Acton.

For Moscow's part, "[it] should respond to such an offer constructively," he said.

Russia Develops New Fuel for Hypersonic Cruise

Missile
By The Moscow Times
Feb. 17 2015 14:59
Last edited 14:59

One half 3544 / WikicommonsBrahMos I supersonic cruise missile, considered to be the fastest in the world.

Russia has created a powerful recipe for fuel that will allow missiles to fly faster than five times the speed of sound,
a development that if utilized effectively would make Russia a major player in a growing hypersonic arms race, a
deputy defense minister said.

The recipe has been created and the energy accumulated in this fuel will enable our vehicles to exceed Mach 5,
General Dmitry Bulgakov, deputy defense minister, was quoted by the TASS news agency as saying on Tuesday.

Mach 5, or 6,126 kilometers per hour, is considered to be the barrier between supersonic speeds and hypersonic
speeds.

Militaries around the world are racing to harness the power of hypersonic flight, which by slashing missile flight
times will complicate countries' ability to detect and respond to attacks and potentially upset the global military
balance of power.
The United States, China, Russia and India are all working to develop hypersonic missile systems, but the
engineering challenges are daunting. Hypersonic missiles need to be strong to withstand the stress of flight beyond
Mach 5.

While the United States and China have focused their efforts on so-called boost-glide hypersonic missiles, which
launch on a rocket and then glide to their target, Russia and India have chosen to focus their efforts on the co-
development of a hypersonic cruise missile.

Cruise missiles differ from ballistic missiles in that they fly under their own power to their target and can fly low to
evade early warning radar systems.

Russia and India have already developed a cruise missile together, known as BrahMos. Considered the fastest
supersonic cruise missile in the world, BrahMos travels at speeds up to Mach 3, or about 3,675 kilometers per hour.