Navy Eyes New Weapon for Global Strike, Missile Defense

By Elaine M. Grossman
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy is floating the idea of developing a new ballistic missile for global attack operations that could also be used as an interceptor in the nation’s evolving strategic missile defense system (see GSN, March 20).

While one variant of the proposed 40-inch ballistic missile could be deployed aboard four Ohio-class submarines the Navy recently converted for conventional missions (see GSN, Oct. 30, 2007), another variant might ride aboard Aegis cruiser ships to augment ground-based missile defenses, according to one senior service official.

Speaking yesterday at a Capitol Hill breakfast on condition of not being named, the Navy official described a “Submarine-Launched Global Strike Missile” that could be built for the Defense Department’s emerging “prompt global strike” mission (see GSN, Sept. 18, 2007). 

Under the broad concept, the United States could attack targets anywhere around the world within one hour of a launch order.  Currently, the United States does not field any conventional weapons with sufficient range and speed for the mission.  However, top defense officials say a growing number of high-priority, fleeting targets — such as terrorist leaders or rogue-nation WMD sites — make the development of prompt global strike weapons a pressing need.

With an estimated 4,500-mile range, the Navy’s conceptual missile might offer nearly as much reach as the nuclear-tipped Trident D-5 missile deployed today on 14 Ohio-class submarines, noted the senior official.  Congress last year shelved the Pentagon’s proposal for arming some D-5s with conventional warheads, citing concerns that Russia or China might mistake a launch of the weapon for a nuclear attack and respond in kind.

The Navy official yesterday took pains to emphasize that his service was not formally proposing to build the new design as a prompt global strike weapon, but rather was simply describing what the service could offer.  He referred to the concept as offering an “opportunity” to develop an intermediate-range missile.

Still, in describing the idea, the official’s slide presentation responded to lawmaker concerns about the potential for nuclear vs. conventional missile launch “ambiguity.”

If the Navy were to shoot the 40-inch missile from a converted submarine, there would be “immediately observable differences at launch,” distinguishable from a Trident D-5 weapon when viewed through infrared imaging, he said.  Moreover, just two rocket stages would propel the new conventional missile, whereas the nuclear-armed Trident D-5 uses three stages.  And the conventional weapon would deliver a single re-entry body, while a Trident D-5 typically launches multiple, independently targeted warheads, he said.

Not everyone in the audience was convinced.  It could be that launching any type of ballistic missile from a stealthy Ohio-class submarine would run a substantial risk of international misinterpretation and might trigger a nuclear war, according to Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists.

“Although an intermediate-range missile is different from the D-5, it is still a ballistic missile, and we cannot be certain that adversaries will always be certain that it’s not nuclear,” he told GSN.

For the missile defense mission, the senior Navy official said he could imagine the same 40-inch weapon deployed on cruisers, and perhaps even as a potential replacement for the interceptor deployed today as part of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system (see GSN, July 16).

“We are in a position where we could shape missile defense — because it operates around this 40-inch size — and at the same time, we shape a prompt global strike [weapon],” he said.  “We may not choose to do that but we should look carefully at the engineering, because the industrial base advantages — and therefore the cost advantages and the training and the similarity — are certainly significant.”

The official said he had not discussed the idea at length with the Missile Defense Agency nor was the service prepared to formally propose it at this time.  However, the Navy has begun contemplating possible options for both the offensive and defensive missions, and some officials are intrigued by the potential for procurement efficiencies, he said.

Back to top
About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines © Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.