Boeing Proposes Missile With Global Reach

AOL NEWS ^ | 3/18/2010 | Sharon Weinberger

[ErnstStavroBlofeld]

For nearly a decade, the Pentagon has grappled with finding a way to field a weapon with the speed and range of an intercontinental ballistic missile, but without the political ramifications of launching a nuke. Now Boeing says it has the answer: a revived 1980s-era hypersonic missile that could strike anywhere in the world in less than an hour.

The company says it has a missile concept ready, and that if it gets the go-ahead and funding from the Pentagon, the weapon could be ready for fielding within 30 months. The missile, which was developed in the 1980s, is already "flight proven," Margaret Morse, Boeing's director for strategic missile systems, told reporters today at a press briefing on the company's missile defense work.

Boeing says it can built a hypersonic missile capable of hitting anywhere in the world. It would offer a different option than an intercontinental ballistic missile, which is shown here being launched during a 2007 test in Alaska. The company describes the hypersonic strike vehicle as a quick turnaround "gap filler" that could fit the Pentagon's desire for what officials call "prompt global strike," that is, the ability to strike anywhere in the world within one hour using a conventional weapon. Such a capability has been proposed as a way to strike "fleeting targets," such as a high-profile terrorist.

[tet68]

Seems like it would just be simpler to use an ICBM,
then you’d be sure.

[happinesswithoutpeace]

“hour”

Before the convoy leaves (insert area of Yemen here) : )

[17th Miss Regt]

The picture posted is not of an ICBM launch in Alaska. That is the interceptor missile.

[Tallguy]

There’ve been proposals to field non-nuke ICBM’s floating around for a while. What would a rival do when they see one lift-off from a known US missile base? How can they be sure of the warhead type? Wait for it to go BOOM?

This is why cruise missiles are the weapon-of-choice for most missions.

[HawaiianGecko]

First, an ICBM only has a range of 6,000 miles which won't allow it to hit anywhere in the world.  Second, in today's dollars a single ICBM costs about 40 million dollars.  Not much bang for the buck with a conventional warhead on top.  Third, there are no ICBMs in Alaska and the picture in the article is not one of any known ICBMs in the U.S. arsenal.  (I built the W-56 & W-62 warheads atop the MK-11 & MK12 re-entry systems which were in turn atop the Minuteman II & IIIs respectively and can assure you this is not an ICBM.)

[SuperLuminal]

"Seems like it would just be simpler to use an ICBM, then you’d be sure. "

Yep...Particularly if we had surreptitiously purchased a few of those old Soviet 50MT jobs...

Use one to stop the Iranian nuke development...no targeting accuracy issues...Another to part the Red Sea precisely at the half-way point...A twofer...

[AFreeBird]

Seems like it would just be simpler to use an ICBM, then you’d be sure.

"I say we take off and nuke the site from orbit; it's the only way to be sure' - Ripley

Aliens was on this evening.

[yooling]

"hypersonic missile that could strike anywhere in the world in less than an hour. "

Holy crap that's fast!

[diogenes ghost]

Boeing is pulling someone's pud.

Hypersonic missiles are not viable yet, not even close.

[CurlyDave]

How this could never be mistaken for a nuclear launch is very unclear.

Seems to me that a clandestine program to put a nuke on a hypersonic missile would be an obvious enhancement to the program. The Russians could never be sure it was conventional.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Boeing is pulling someone's pud.

Maybe it could be called the "Pud-Knocker"? - anyone's pud anywhere in the world in 60 minutes.