Anonymously contributed:
Cost to Test U.S. Global-Strike Missile Could Reach $500 Million
Monday, March 15, 2010
By Elaine M. Grossman
Global Security Newswire
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Defense Department could spend as much as a half-billion dollars to flight-test a new conventionally armed ballistic missile with a sophisticated capability to destroy targets virtually anywhere around the world, Global Security Newswire has learned (see GSN, July 1, 2009).
Obama administration officials are touting the emerging technology as a partial alternative to nuclear weapons. Conventional "prompt global strike" arms could be used against targets thousands of miles away that must be dealt with quickly, from al-Qaeda safe havens along the Pakistani-Afghan border or an impending North Korean nuclear-armed missile being readied for launch.
The only hitch is that the premier weapon system for the Pentagon's conventional prompt global strike mission -- the Air Force's Conventional Strike Missile -- is in the throes of cost hikes and management tangles that could complicate hopes for rapid fielding.
Senior defense officials, aware that a more public role for the weapon is likely to attract additional congressional scrutiny, are seeking greater cost and planning discipline in the Conventional Strike Missile effort…
http://gsn.nti.org/gsn/nw_20100315_8655.php
11 comments:
And how are the Russians and Chinese supposed to tell that a ballistic missile launch has a convention warhead? We just tell them to trust us?
There is only one reason to use a ballistic missile - to deliver WMD. Otherwise it's hugely cost ineffective.
7:01 AM
The plan as I have read in the media is to base the HE armed Global Strike ICBMs at new bases that have not previously housed nuclear tipped ICBMs. These bases would be in different parts of the country, well away from nuclear missile fields, and also open to Russian inspection. For example, Vandenberg AFB in southern California or Cape Canaveral AFB in Florida.
March 16, 2010 7:01 AM Actually it is very cost effective.Any time you can deliver weapons without a manned vehicle you are saving money.
Much rather have this than a socialist healthcare bill and being taxed into poverty to assure the survival of our nations parasites.
March 17, 2010 7:23 AM...
Wut!??
Using a megabuck missile to lob at max a few hundred kilograms of HE is hardly cost-effective. Add in the cost of basing and political gyratations to re-assure other nations to the total price too.
It would still be a game of "Trust me, they're just conventional warheads". Russia made a huge fuss about missile defense in Poland, they are not likely to tolerate a new class of ICBM much better.
March 18, 2010 8:40 AM
You don't know what you are talking about. Go do some research on the cost of manned aircraft (fighters, bombers) and the enormous cost of developing them, purchasing them, training the flight crews, training the ground crews, and deploying them and then contrast that with missile development and deployment and you might speak intelligently on the subject. Most, if not all, gravity weapons now have phenomenal precision. Sending a 20 million dollar manned fighter or, even worse, 2 billion dollar bomber to drop a single precision weapon (which has become routine these days) is remarkably cost ineffective.
The best and brightest, right.
Cost for fighter development:
"The cost of developing the Joint Strike Fighter, a radar-evading jet, could increase by as much as $5 billion, to $38 billion, and the project could fall more than a year behind schedule, Pentagon sources said."
This is par for the course when developing manned weapons platforms. 500 million for a global strike capability looks like chump change by comparison.
March 19, 2010 7:17 AM
Old rule in rhetoric - when you can't beat the thought then attack the person.
In fact I do know about costs of development. And have my copy of Jane's right next to me to check facts.
Your argument ignores that many new delivery systems leverage off pre-existing infrastructure, man-power, training, etc. But I won't infer you're an idiot because you did not mention that.
Now, when I spoke of cost-effectiveness I specifically meant the cost in terms of ratio of unit cost to damage inflicted, not the aggregate cost. A GBU is highly cost-effective in that sense. An ICBM with a HE warhead is not.
March 22, 2010 8:33 AM
Huh? That is some pretty twisted logic. I guess you understand what you are saying, I am not sure anyone else does.
By the way, moderator, I thought there was no name calling allowed yet you posted "fanboi" "cool tech". Your bias is showing again.
hey 7:10 PM
I am not biased. I am human and on very rare occasions can miss a few bad words. I will delete the culprit!
Post a Comment