User Panel
Posted: 2/17/2006 2:01:36 PM EDT
U.S. May Arm Subs With Conventional Warheads for Quicker Strike
Jan. 17 (Bloomberg) -- The Pentagon wants to spend up to $500 million through 2011 to replace nuclear warheads with conventional warheads on some submarine-launched ballistic missiles, according to budget documents. The purpose is to allow quicker preemptive attacks on deeply buried enemy command centers or stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. U.S. submarines carry ballistic missiles that fly at supersonic speeds, faster than those launched from land- based silos or airplanes. ``This weapon would give the U.S. global, conventional preemption -- a first-strike capability -- in 30 minutes, to attack North Korean or Iranian WMD or leadership facilities,'' said William Arkin, a former Army intelligence analyst and independent defense consultant and author. The fiscal 2007-2011 defense budget plan calls for building as many as 96 conventional warheads for installation on 24 of the Navy's roughly 336 nuclear D5 Trident missiles, according to a 33-page Dec. 20 memo signed by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England. Each missile carries up to four warheads. The U.S. would have to work out notification procedures with its allies as well as China and Russia to prevent a nuclear misunderstanding, said Stan Norris, a senior analyst for the Natural Resources Defense Council and the author of an annual compilation of U.S. nuclear forces. ``While there are advantages, especially in being able to hit a target within 20-30 minutes, there are important questions that will need answers,'' he said. `How Differentiate?' For example, ``how would Russian early warning radars differentiate between conventional missile attacks aimed at say al-Qaeda caves on the Afghan-Pakistan border and those aimed at Russian missile silos?'' Norris said. ``Is it possible that the U.S. would notify Russia or China of an impending attack to avoid the possibility of Russian or Chinese misinterpretation?'' Arkin agreed. ``Before we start shooting ballistic missiles at countries we had better work to resolve the question of false warnings and accidental nuclear war, particularly if North Korea were ever a target,'' he said. The U.S. presently can launch non-nuclear strikes using B-2 bombers based in Missouri or Tomahawk cruise missiles off submarines and surface vessels. Neither weapon travels as fast as a sub-launched ballistic missile. This new strategy ``places the ballistic missile submarine on the front line of U.S. offensive capabilities,'' Arkin said. ``Trident missiles will be able to place a conventional warhead on target in only 12 minutes, far quicker than any other long- range weapon.'' Any strikes would be coordinated by a new joint-service unit that the U.S. Strategic Command set up in November at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. Lockheed Missile Improved The Pentagon commitment suggests contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. has made progress in improving the accuracy of the D5 missile, said Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons analyst with the Federation of American Scientists. Cold War nuclear missiles were built less for precision than for widespread destruction. Lockheed Martin Space Systems since 1995 has spent its own research money to improve the accuracy of a conventional Trident missile. Test flights in 2002 and 2005 demonstrated ``the feasibility of achieving near-tactical GPS accuracy with conventional warheads on the D5,'' spokesman Thomas Greer said in an e-mail statement. Slow Down, Maneuver The 2005 test showed that a conventional warhead bearing on a target could slow down and maneuver to receive last-minute Global Positioning System satellite coordinates, ``providing capabilities that would be needed for the delivery of some types of conventional warheads to their targets,'' Greer said. About 2,500 Lockheed Martin employees work on the Trident D5 missile program in California, Georgia, Florida and Washington State. ``The warhead could possibly provide Trident missiles with the accuracy to strike within 10 meters of their intended, stationary targets,'' the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said in a Sept. 7 report. A Lockheed Martin Space Systems Co. official in July laid out these finding to the Pentagon Defense Science Board Task Force on Nuclear Capabilities and said it could start producing the warheads by 2010 if it received money this year, CRS said. The long-range budget plan calls for spending $127 million in fiscal 2007 and $225 million in fiscal 2008 to develop and buy a warhead with a capability to penetrate ``hard and deeply buried targets,'' according to England's memo, which also spells out other major budget decisions. Gives `Both Options' Kristensen said the Pentagon's new strategy will enable the Navy to meet the Strategic Command's goal ``of having both nuclear and conventional strategic strike options available to the president.'' ``U.S. Strategic Command is examining ways for delivering prompt, precise strike globally,'' the command said in a Jan. 9 statement e-mailed to Bloomberg News. ``A requirement for a specific weapon system has not been identified but leveraging existing systems has the potential to quickly deliver capability to the warfighter,'' the statement said. ``Increased precision may allow targets currently held at risk with nuclear weapons to be targeted with conventional weapons, providing options other than nuclear weapons for prompt global strike,'' it said. http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aZeqovAl9zgY&refer=us |
|
Couple problems:
Trident missiles are really fucking expensive. They are literally small space rockets. The fly up into low orbit and release multiple warheads on a ballistic path. The cost would be prohibitive unless you planned on using them to strike multiple targets at the same time. Which would require extensive planning. Upshots: Those warheads would be coming down at extreme velocities. Put a tungsten penetrator on the tip with a shaped charge and they could be the ultimate "bunker buster". Plus chances are good that the targets will have absolutely no clue. They'll find themselves standing at the pearly gates, still saying "WTF was that?!" |
|
What they really oughta do is do some half SSGN conversions. Say 16 tubes for tomahawks and the other 8 for the tridents. Much more versatility in the same package...
|
|
Allowing a NK missile with a nuke warhead to launch at downtown SF would be a whole lot more expensive... |
|
|
What about the accuracy? what is the CPE of the MIRVs of a Trident? Be no good if you missed by 200 yards.
We don't like SF. |
|
|
They're already doing that. Thing is, a ballistic bomb is much faster than a cruise missile. If they can ensure the Russians don't think we're launching a nuke at them, it should work. |
|
|
CEP is 10 yds |
||
|
Your input is noted Admiral. The notification stuff is troubling. Especially, if we're striking targets in China. We really haven't developed IRBMs lately, and it looks like China and Russia are exploring the possibility of deploying similar, manuevering missiles. Makes sense from an operational point of view. The criticism of having to preplan the strike isn't all that valid, especially if they'll have some retargeting capability like the article says. Expense, yes there is expense involved; however, these would, obviously, be used for extremely hard targets. The expense would be worth it, IMO. |
|
|
Perhaps you missed the part about GPS terminal guidance? |
||
|
There are reports that the US is discussing with the Chinese and Russsians protocols and proceedures for using this type of system. ANdy |
|
|
It looks like nothing but a Navy ploy to keep up funding for its Trident fleet. They obviously need to find a new job. Why spend billions to do a job that can be done better and cheaper with existing systems?
|
|
Hmmm.. did you actually read the article? |
|
|
Hell doesn't have pearly gates... |
|
|
CPO (ret) |
||
|
I know of no threat to the Trident fleet, funding-wise. Do you know something I don't? |
|
|
Currently quoted CEP fo a D5 MIRV is 10yds... ANdy |
||
|
Nope. Last time I checks, all the SSGN conversions are going to all tomahawks. No in-between. |
||
|
Actually, they say 90m. 10m for the proposed warheads with GPS, which is basically the GPS error. |
|||
|
Why bother swapping Nuke Warheads for Conventional ones? They both go BOOM, just that with Nukes you get a bigger punch and a near guarrantee that bombed facilities won't be rebuilt
|
|
is odd. i have a semi relative, retired AF general. and during the iraq thing and the bunker busters, i brought up the idea of using icbms (land based in particular) with conventional warheads due to the ability of those things to penetrate like hell (i may be wrong but seems like i heard those things reach 50,000mph on impact) and would be super acurate. his reply was the cost (which has been brought up). compared to bombers.
from a tactical/surgical point i would think something like this would be better than tactical nukes. my guess is a tactical ballistic missile assault on the iranian nuclear sites would be more assured of being affective than any other type of attack short of nuclear or boots on the ground and down in the hole. as for the use of them.. obviously you wouldna do a massive strike with them (like an end of the world nuke massive wave attack). you would do a few aimed at a general small group of sites. Now if you did this and you sneaked a few nukes into russia or china for instance, they're gonna have enough land based stuff to make you pay big time.. so two things.. small numbers and short notice to such countries. obviously if russia or china sees several thousand boogies coming at them they aint even gonna ask us if it conventional or not... |
|
Oh, shit! He pissed off a Chief! NOW you've done it! |
|||
|
Sunk costs. They're already paid for. We have excess capacity, so rather than toss them, we can convert them. Only real costs for the conventional missles would be conversion and maintenance costs. |
|
|
That's true. We already have 4 SSBNs worth of C-4 missiles that are no longer being used. Might as well reconfigure the launch vehicle into something useful. |
|
|
No, but it cannot be that far off. The U.S. does not face a serious nuclear threat, so how long are we going to fund Trident programs at their current levels? I'm sure this is the motivation. They know it’s coming. It's the same reason the Navy converted F-14's to carry bombs, even after they had fought it for years. |
||
|
Nah. I ain't pissed. I've mellowed in my old age. I just don't want anyone mistaking me for some damn officer. |
||||
|
I doubt it. The USAF has very few missiles left compared to their heyday. Few bombers standing alert. The Navy has already converted 4 SSBNs to SSGNs rather than lose useful hulls. Really, if you think about it, the SSBN is rapidly becoming the backbone of our nuclear deterrent force. An increasingly important role given newer threats and an expanding Chinese military. |
|||
|
Hey, Hey, HEY! At least put a "sir" on the end of that! |
|
|
Officer, CPO, still a damn KHAKI! |
|||||
|
Sir. Now, please excuse me while I go talk shit about you in the Goat Locker. |
||
|
The CEP is for 50% of the warheads landing within the 90m radius and basically you can aim at a particular missile silo with a good chance of scoring a 'direct hit'. The Russian (who have probaly got the test data from it's spy network), have always attributed the Trident II with a very high degree of accuracy. ANdy |
||||
|
"For example, ``how would Russian early warning radars differentiate between conventional missile attacks aimed at say al-Qaeda caves on the Afghan-Pakistan border and those aimed at Russian missile silos?'' Norris said. ``Is it possible that the U.S. would notify Russia or China of an impending attack to avoid the possibility of Russian or Chinese misinterpretation?''
Arkin agreed. ``Before we start shooting ballistic missiles at countries we had better work to resolve the question of false warnings and accidental nuclear war, particularly if North Korea were ever a target,'' he said." That's fucking brilliant. "Trust me, it's not a nuke inbound to targets in your country." North Korea? India? Does our .gov really think you could use an ICBM without consequence? What insane dictator/leader who got warning/detection would not go bananas and respond as if it was a nuke. |
|
|
|
|
Yeah, but as soon as he responds, he's gonna be hating life, but only for a little while... |
|
|
You’re certainly in a better position to know, but doesn't the scaling back of ICBM's and bomber-based systems just prove my point at least to a certain degree? These systems have been scaled back for a reason. No mater how you look at it, the U.S. does not face a serious nuclear threat anymore. Even if China emerges as a threat, it's at least fifty years away. Hell, by that time ICBM's may be obsolete anyway. I might be wrong but I think this has more to do with a few Trident admirals trying to find a new job for their multi billion-dollar hardware. |
||||
|
I can certainly see your point. However, those systems are much more vulnerable than a Trident. I guess it really depends on what this year's QDR says. The only thing I can find is the aforementioned SSGNs.
I wouldn't be so sure. Apparantly, there are some civilian sat photos that show Chinese military buildup underground. They seem to be building up faster than was previously thought.
Not if Russia and now the US can perfect manuevering ICBMs.
|
||||
|
[Ronald Reagan] My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw |
|
|
It is a lot less than Minuteman or Peacekeeper. |
|
|
Who is the "they" in your post. It certainly wasn't the Navy as a whole, or even all of Naval Aviation. There were a lot of Bombcat proponents, just not very many among the senior leaders of that community who viewed mud-moving as the realm of lesser aviators. |
|
|
Cost is pretty high, but we are already throwing $1M T-hawks at mud huts. The real advantage here comes from penetration and time on target. Even with a pre-planned strike using a generated bomber you are talking hours to the better part of a day, especially if you have to work DipClrs. SLBM can get there in a hurry and you don't need to get permission to transit airspace. Regarding planning: It is the military. Planning is the order of the day, especially at STRATCOM. Even more so since they took on the global strike mission. |
|
|
I guess "They" would be the "senior leaders of that community who viewed mud-moving as the realm of lesser aviators" that you speak of. |
||
|
You'd probably need a $200 tax stamp for each warhead.....dang it. The BATF is touchy about rocket motors too. Still, that would really "rock the house" at Bulletfest. Wouldn't really have to go, even.
|
|
Probably wouldn't even need to have an explosive warhead, just drop a one ton chunk of tungsten on them going 50,000 mph, it should ruin their day. |
|
|
I do recall Vito mentioned a picture existing on the internet of an impact zone after several dummy MIRV warheads (concrete instead of plutonium?) slammed into the ground, and said the craters were quite impressive.
Does anyone have a link to that? I couldnt find it anywhere when I looked for it. Kharn |
|
F-14s did something similar during OEF. 500 pounders would dust too many mud huts so the improvise, adapt, and overcome solution was to put a JDAM kit on a parctice bomb. Plenty of KE from 30K feet to collapse the mud hut, killing everyone inside, and leave the neighbor's digs standing. |
||
|
Expensive but not as much as building a system to drop hypersonic bombs from space...
|
|
Re-Entry speed at Burn Out is approximately 15,000 MPH or 6700 Meters/Sec For simplicity sake: assume that the final impact speed is approximately 5000 Meters/Sec And that the payload is 1000 kg of inert material (Metal) Energy released by 1 Ton of TNT is approximately equal to 4184000 Joules of Energy Kinetic Energy (KE) = (.5)*Mass*Velocity^2 So KE = (.5)*(1000)*(5000*5000) or KE = 1250000000 Joules of Energy (or equivalent to an Explosive yeild of 2.9 Kilo Tons of TNT) For Cratering Kinetic Energy = K*R^4 Where K = (2*(Pi)/3)*d*g and R is the Radius of the Crater where d = Density of ejecta (dirt/rock, concrete,etc) and g = 9.8 M/sec^2 Let d = 3500 kg/M^2 Radius of Crater = (((1250000000)*(3/(2*Pi))/3500))^.25 = 36 Meters 1 Meter is approximately 3.28 feet therefore 36 meters is 118 feet Diameter = 2*Radius And (unless I erred somewhere in my calculations or assumptions) this would give us a crater diameter of approximately 236 feet for a 1 kiloton chunk of metal. Since the chunk of metal would probably be in the shape of a Cone, the crater would be somewhat narrower than the above amount, and would be deeper (assuming it wouldn't be refilled by debris) So I suppose a good guess for a non explosive payload would be crater sizes ranging up to almost 200 feet in diameter (Maximum) to with a Maximum depth slightly deeper than 130 feet. As far as the Ground shock wave is concerned an Earthquake of 6.0 on the Richter Scale is equivalent to about 1 Kilo Tons Explosive Energy of TNT, since the projectile would impact at a very high speed the shock wave would be very narrow and have a very large amplitude, so it would probably be a good guess that if the projectile didn't burrow deep enough to reach the bunker, the shock wave alone would severely damage the bunker, possibly killing the occupants inside of it. Putting Explosives on it with a fuze that could survive the impact and detonate the Secondary charge a micro second later, would change the terminal results somewhat. |
||
|
One of my colleagues who happens to be a real rocket scientist, just completed a feasability study for the Navy on this. We discussed it a bit. We both have some reservations.
I don't believe the Trident D5s will be the delivery vehicle of choice. |
|
I wonder if this is the same program or a variation of it?
Global Strike ATK, in partnership with Lockheed Martin, is developing a submarine-launched, intermediate-range ballistic missile (SLIRBM) — a supersonic, GPS-guided, long-range strike missile capable of flying 1,000 nautical miles in 12 minutes to deliver a 1,000-pound warhead to within 20 meters of its target. The 32-inch-diameter missiles are designed to be launched from Trident ballistic missile firing tubes aboard four U.S Navy Ohio-class submarines that are being converted to guided-missile submarines. Their mission is to support special operations and deliver long-range conventional strike weapons. This weapon system will extend the life of the Trident-class ballistic missile submarine to meet changing threat requirements, while making the most of taxpayer investments in the nation's defense system. ATK link..... |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.