User Panel
But but.. think of the |
||
|
Not to nitpick but... I doubt the warhead would impact at 5000 m/s. Probably terminal velocity, which is probably significantly less than that. But then again, I really have no idea how the thing would slow down from orbital speed without burning up. Also, 1000 kg ≠1 kiloton. What's the max payload of a Trident missile? Just saying that I doubt the effect of a warhead relying on purely KE... |
|||
|
This is a PDF of a report to Congress on this. It goes a long way to explaining everything about it.
www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/RL33067.pdf This has been an idea kicking around since 2003, just never funded until now. Being able to hit any target on Earth in minutes, with a weapon that you cannot intercept, from the safety of the open ocean, is a pretty good capabiltiy. Even if it is some Admiral's idea of how to "save the Trident fleet" you have to admit that it does the job intended. Knowing that Uncle Sam can piss on you in 12 minutes and there's absolutely no where to hide, and nothing you can do about it is an advantage to us when the enemy has to consider that within their decision loop. The only drawback, and it's definately one, is the notification/reaction deal. That's going to be the real thorn for the program. |
|
Why not develop a transponder for the warhead to differentiate nukes from conventional, similar to IFF?
|
|
No shit! I think the reporter's confused with the conversion of Ohio class subs to tomahawk and SEALs carriers. If the target's too far inland too be reached by sub launched tomahawk, send the B-2s. |
|
|
errr...terminal velocity is not a specific number. rather, it represents the bottom of the parabolic trajectory, when the falling object loses horizontal transfer and falls "straight down". Vt varies from object to object based upon weight, drag, and initial velocity. as an exercise, calculate the acceleration of gravity in a vacuum for 60,000 feet, then calculate the remaining 60,000 feet modified by the drag coefficient of, say, a nosler partition. when you arrive at that whopping number, realize that the RV was not at rest, but rather going mach 25 at the beginning of the "fall". |
|
|
Dear Russia, should any MIRVs cross over your country in polar sub orbit while going "beep beep beep", don't worry as they are ours. However if they are going "boop boop boop" they arn't. Regards, Uncle Sam |
|
|
+1. I don't care if it is Admirals trying to "save the Trident"; I WANT my military working to hit any target anywhere on the planet within 30 minutes of being given the go order. We have craploads of MMII's, MMIII's and at least 50 PK's. Let's start the conversion process now. Merlin |
|
|
No he's not, it is a specific requirement to convert Trident II's for conventional warheads for a near real time global attack capability. It's not distance, its TIME that is the issue. A Trident II does Mach 25, a B-2 does Mach 0.9. ANdy |
||
|
Would nuke/conventional differentiation really be that much of a concern? After all, we're only talking about converting a maximum of 96 warheads. Even if a significant percentage of that number was ever launched simultaneously, it would still look rather puny, by nuclear attack standards - certainly not enough to take out all retaliatory capabilities. In all likelihood, no more than a handful would ever be launched at one time.
In a new era of conventional-warhead ICBMs, I'd like to propose a new Rule Of Thumb for Chinese/Russian early warning: • More than 10 ICBMs tracked in flight = We're in deep doo-doo • Less than 10 ICBM tracked in flight = Turn on CNN and watch those silly Americans blow some 3rd-world sh*thole all to hell |
|
The problem lies in Russian nuclear strategists. While we, as the American public, often perceived the nuclear option as an all or nothing game the Russians did not. They believed a small but dehabilitating nuclear strike could acheived through diplomatic manuever. Sort of and oops we didn't mean to kinda thing. They believed that most American Presidents didn't have the balls to respond in kind, which would have lead to total nuclear war. That is until Reagan scared the everliving shit out of them. |
|
|
SSBN's are named after states. Battleships were named after states. Why not use SSBN's for Naval Gunfire Support? The Marines would be pleased.
SSN: Saturdays, Sundays and Nights. |
|
We should lose our aversion to using nukes against enemies who have sworn to destroy us. Then we don't have to rearm anything.
|
|
Don't start the Keyboard Admirals off! They will want to put 16" guns on the SSBN's! ANdy |
|
|
Uh, we haven't put guns on subs since WWII, and I'm not sure how well tomahawks would work in that role... Now go help E-Div rig shore power... |
|
|
Although I'm not in the game anymore, I put a lot of B,S &Ts in the Trident I and II Programs and wouldn't mind seeing them used in a conventional application. There is a lot of sunk costs in those missiles/platforms and conventionalizing the D5 may represent a value over developing a new faster delivery system. I do have serious concerns on how Russia and China's early warning systems would react to a launch.
bomber....so now you know where I got my nickname |
|
Hey, you don't want to be within about 26 miles of an angry battleship, do you? Actually, this type of weapon, along with the previously referenced ATK site, would give the US some serious capabilities. One of the problems that we sometimes have is that we can't kill an enemy leader, even if we know where he is right now, 'cause we don't know for sure where he'll be when the strike package get's there. This would allow us to take out someone like Saddam in the length of his speach. Saddam: Dear Iraqi People... I have gathered you here today so that we can all chant 'Death to America'. Boom. |
||
|
FYI, the DOD leases the C4 and D5 missiles from Lockheed. The main reduction gear back in the engineroom is another piece of gear that is leased.
Another piece of the story is that the communications bandwidth on a boomer is pretty close to zero. ELF and VLF radio can be received while maintaining stealth. Satellite can be used if the boat is at periscope depth--and it's not uncommon to broach and get stuck on the surface in a boomer at PD. The keel is at 83' when a boomer is at PD and it can't back up like a fast boat can, so the amount of available litoral water is somewhat restricted. Turn radius is about a half mile. Ty http://webpages.charter.net/tyoberg/upload/dolphins.GIF |
|
BAD IDEA!
Every Time we launch something from a sub, somebody is there unraveling the puzzle of how we keep these things so well damn hidden. You can bet the russians and chinese are in the same areas listening. The more we openly use the stealthy characteristics of a sub the more likely we are to lose that element of first strike/ response capability. Not to mention who ever is watching the Russian / Chinese ICMBs are not going to be happy about several tubes emptying off their shores and overflying their airspace, whether in space or not and whether non nuclear or not. That would be a big risk. If we can fly over there and bomb em' the old fashioned way we might as well mount a freaking laser beam on the Moon. I still like the Rods from Gods Satellite . Thatd be a better option. We just need to convert the Hubble from its lame astronomy gig instead of de orbiting it. |
|
For an idea like that, he gets to hook up CHT. The kinetic energy of a moving object can be amazing. I'll remind everyone that the sabot slug fired by the M1A1 is entirely a kintetic-kill weapon. Now multiply the mass by a few dozen times and crank the speed up, and you'd be able to take down a bunker VERY easily. |
||
|
Didn't know about the missiles, but I've heard the stories about the reduction gears all the time, but with no reason. Is it just cost? |
|
|
I like the idea of the capability for high-value time sensitive targets. I have no doubt that one several occasions we knew where Bin-Laden was but couldn't get assets to him fast enough...this could change that.
Hell, as far as that goes you don't even have to have them on subs. Surface launched would fit the bill fine. |
|
It's not true. AFAIK, it has never been true, about the reduction gear at least. We asked specifically about reduction gear when I precommed a DDG and it needed MRG work during PSA. |
||
|
I kinda like the idea about destroying something in mere minutes from order to destruction.
|
|
Since when? That is news to me. We always sold off Final inspections and DD250s to Navpro and there weren't any GCs involved. It was my impression that the guidance systems were CFM to Lockheed. Oh well what do I know anyway. My info is from back in the GE Aerospace and Martin Marietta days. Bomber |
|
|
These "the Navy leases" this or that piece of equipment rumors have been around for a while. I have yet to find one that has a basis in truth. |
||
|
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.