nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Short time left to make a comment on this very dangerous costly USA Hypersonic plan

Hypersonic flight is defined as flight through the atmosphere at altitudes below 100 kilometres (km) and at speeds above Mach 5 (~3,800 miles per hour, or roughly 5 times the speed of sound).

MILITARY HYPERSONIC VEHICLE DESIGNS

Two types of hypersonic vehicle (see below) are being developed to serve military functions. Both can deliver conventional or nuclear payloads at speeds between Mach 5 and Mach 20, offering virtually unlimited global strike range when coordinated with existing weapons delivery systems.

WHAT IS THE MILITARY VALUE OF HYPERSONIC WEAPONS?

In theory, the key advantages of hypersonic vehicles are speed, evasiveness, and manoeuvrability. Hypersonic missiles and glide vehicles are designed to combine the manoeuvrability of a cruise missile with the speed of a ballistic missile. Unlike ICBMs, which travel in predictable paths at high altitudes in a parabolic arc toward their target, hypersonic weapons take unpredictable paths at low altitudes with higher speeds. As a result, these weapons have the potential to render modern ballistic missile defence systems obsolete. Able to deliver conventional, nuclear, or biological payloads at high velocities over long ranges, hypersonic weapons, if operational, could strike with little notice, enabling unprecedented global first-strike capabilities.


Please make a comment – you don’t have to be an expert.


1) Testing of Hypersonics will dramatically escalate the nuclear arms race/new Cold War2) Our nation can’t afford another arms race – especially one in space3) We need to be spending our national treasury on dealing with our real enemy – climate crisis and growing economic inequality
4) Toxic rocket fuel exacerbates an already grave climate crisis5) It’s time the warmongers listened to the taxpayers

Notice of Availability for the Joint Flight Campaign (JFC) Draft Programmatic Environmental Assessment/Overseas Environmental Assessment (PEA/OEA). The Proposed Action, Joint Flight Campaign (JFC), is sponsored by the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering and by the United States Department of the Army (U.S. Army). These agencies have designated the United States Department of the Navy (U.S. Navy) Strategic Systems Programs (SSP) and the U.S. Army Rapid Capabilities and Critical Technologies Office (RCCTO) as the lead agencies for the Proposed Action. The U.S. Army RCCTO, the U.S. Navy SSP, and the United States Army Space and Missile Defense Command (USASMDC), as Participating Agencies, along with the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the U.S. Air Force 30th Space Wing, and the U.S. Air Force 45th Space Wing as Cooperating Agencies, have prepared this PEA/OEA in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 42 United States Code 4321, as amended), the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508, 1978, July 1, 1986), the Department of the Army Procedures for Implementing NEPA (32 CFR Part 651), the Department of the Air Force Procedures for Implementing NEPA (32 CFR Part 989), Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 5090.1E, and Executive Order 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions.

The Proposed Action entails up to six flight test launches at up to four different launch locations per year, over the next 10 years. Test objectives are expected to dictate range selection from Atlantic and Pacific test ranges. Due consideration will be given to existing launch ranges to avoid any unnecessary changes to the environment. The launch range for each test will be determined based on the test objectives, and the availability and technical suitability of the test range. Test scenarios are planned to include broad ocean area (BOA) impacts of the spent stages and the hypersonic payload, and do not include any land-based impacts. This PEA/OEA is being prepared as a Programmatic EA to provide an analysis of multiple launch locations that will be available to the test directorates over the next 10 years. The launch selection process will utilize this PEA/OEA and will include a check of the relevancy of this document to support specific launch scenarios. It is anticipated that this PEA/OEA will support most future decisions; however, tiered NEPA documents could occur if there are significant changes to the proposed missile or facilities at a proposed launch location.

The U.S. Army RCCTO and U.S. Navy SSP determined that four launch locations meet the screening criteria/evaluation factors and the test requirements for vehicle performance and data collection. They also considered the No Action Alternative, as required by the CEQ regulations. There is one launch location on the west coast and one in Hawai`i, both with impact sites in the Pacific Ocean, and two launch locations on the east coast, with impact sites in the Atlantic Ocean. The Pacific locations analyzed are the Pacific Missile Range Facility, Barking Sands, Kauai, Hawai`i; Vandenberg Space Force Base, California; and BOA impact sites in the Pacific Ocean. The east coast locations include the NASA Wallops Flight Facility, Virginia; Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida; and Atlantic BOA impact sites.

The Draft JFC PEA/OEA and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) are available at http://jfceaoea.govsupport.usPublic comments on the Draft JFC PEA/OEA and Draft FONSI will be accepted from June 11, 2021 to July 10, 2021 and can be provided in either of the following ways: (1) E mail comments by July 10, 2021 to jfceaoea@govsupport.us; (2) Mail comments, postmarked no later than July 10, 2021, to: USASMDC, ATTN: SMDC-EN (D. Fuller), P.O. Box 1500, Huntsville, AL 35807.
(TGI1329762 6/11/21)
Please make a comment – you don’t have to be an expert.

July 6, 2021 - Posted by | weapons and war

3 Comments »

  1. We need treaties that facilitate international cooperation to combat global climate chaos. Testing these weapons will create a new Cold War and will prevent the cooperation necessary to combat global warming.

    Comment by John Hawksley | July 8, 2021 | Reply

  2. Very bad escalation of the arms race.

    Comment by Bill | July 11, 2021 | Reply

  3. We don’t need hypersonic means of destruction. We’ve already triggered the demise of humanity and persist in doing the same things over and over again, not caring about results. This is worse than insanity. The MIC must be reined in asap, and attention turned to the priorities of survival, not more killing.

    Comment by Bonnie Bayardi | July 12, 2021 | Reply


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: