Prompt Global Strike Update

1. Prompt Global StrikeUpdate August 2005 Col Rick Patenaude HQ AFSPC/DRM

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

3. Nuclear and non - nuclear strike capabilities ICBMs Bombers SLBMs C2, Intelligence & Planning Defenses Responsive Infrastructure Guidance • Contend effectively with future challenges: • Traditional • Irregular • Catastrophic • Disruptive • Projecting forces in distant anti-access environments • Denying enemies sanctuary Nuclear Posture Review New Strategic Triad includes nuclear and non-nuclear capabilities 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.” Range Global Precision Conventional

4. Prompt Global Strike Prompt Global Strike (PGS) Mission Need Statement • Strike globally and rapidly with joint conventional forces against high-payofftargets • 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 Globally: anywhere Lethally: precision Engage Common Aero Vehicle Other • Likely to produce… • A force mix • Not a single • optimized • solution Other Next Generation Bomber Sub Launched Missile

5. 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 and control “pre-boost phase missile defense”

6. Campaign-Level Military Utility Two independent CAV Military Utility Analyses conducted using DoD 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…’”

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

8. FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle Concept Design & Development Flight Demos Hypersonic Technology Vehicle (HTV-1) Hypersonic Technology Vehicle (HTV-2) Military Utility Analysis B Flt Demo PDR CDR CDR PDR Flt Demo Flt Demo PGS AoA Air Force DARPA Air Force /DARPA Small Launch Vehicle • Spacelift booster capable of placing 1,000 lb spacecraft into low earth orbit • 2-hour launch from alert • <$5M recurring launch cost Hypersonic Test Vehicle • Hypersonic technology development • Long Range payload delivery vehicle technology Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle • Space vehicle to carry 12,000 lb payloads at hypersonic speeds • Aircraft-like operations: reusable, recallable, launch-on-demand FALCON Joint Air Force/Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency demonstration program HTV HCV SLV

9. Basing Alaska Vandenberg AFB Guam Minotaur III Minuteman Peacekeeper Conventional Ballistic Missile Booster Weapons Inert Mk 21 Triax PGSEV Mk 4e2 CAV

10. Land Basing Attributes 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 Horizontal Coffin

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

12. 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: • 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 Intended to represent advantage of trajectory planning (not an actual trajectory)