U.S. May Arm Trident Subs With Conventional Warheads for Quicker Strike - Page 2

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - U.S. May Arm Trident Subs With Conventional Warheads for Quicker Strike (Page 2 of 2)

Posted: 2/17/2006 7:02:51 PM EDT

[#1]

Quoted:
Quoted:
The notification stuff is troubling. Especially, if we're striking targets in China.

[Ronald Reagan] My fellow Americans, I'm pleased to tell you today that I've signed legislation that will outlaw ~~Russia~~ China forever. We begin bombing in five minutes. [/Ronald Reagan]

But but.. think of the ~~children~~ Walmarts.

Posted: 2/18/2006 12:23:40 AM EDT

[#2]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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?!"

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.

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.

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...

Posted: 2/18/2006 12:56:32 AM EDT

[#3]

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.

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:00:25 AM EDT

[#4]

Why not develop a transponder for the warhead to differentiate nukes from conventional, similar to IFF?

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:42:44 AM EDT

[#5]

Quoted:
That's just dumb.

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.

Posted: 2/18/2006 10:48:57 AM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

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...

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".

Posted: 2/18/2006 11:07:32 AM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:
Why not develop a transponder for the warhead to differentiate nukes from conventional, similar to IFF?

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

Posted: 2/18/2006 1:02:03 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
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.

+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

Posted: 2/18/2006 1:08:19 PM EDT

[#9]

Quoted:
Quoted:
That's just dumb.

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.

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

Posted: 2/18/2006 7:24:52 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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?!"

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.

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.

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...

nitpick all you want. My figures are just rough estimates. You are more than welcome to refine them.

As the ReEntry Vehicle travels through the atmosphere it undergoes ablation

Posted: 2/18/2006 9:38:58 PM EDT

[#11]

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

Posted: 2/19/2006 3:20:36 AM EDT

[#12]

Quoted:
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.

Posted: 2/19/2006 4:22:45 PM EDT

[#13]

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.

Posted: 2/19/2006 4:44:45 PM EDT

[#14]

We should lose our aversion to using nukes against enemies who have sworn to destroy us. Then we don't have to rearm anything.

Posted: 2/19/2006 4:54:31 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
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.

Don't start the Keyboard Admirals off! They will want to put 16" guns on the SSBN's!

ANdy

Posted: 2/19/2006 4:55:53 PM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:
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.

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...

Posted: 2/19/2006 5:04:05 PM EDT

[#17]

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

Posted: 2/22/2006 8:45:49 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Quoted:
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.

Don't start the Keyboard Admirals off! They will want to put 16" guns on the SSBN's!

ANdy

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.

Posted: 2/22/2006 9:10:51 AM EDT

[#19]

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

Posted: 2/22/2006 9:29:35 AM EDT

[#20]

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.

Posted: 2/22/2006 9:39:31 AM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Quoted:
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.

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...

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.

Posted: 2/22/2006 9:41:22 AM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:
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.

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?

Posted: 2/22/2006 9:45:02 AM EDT

[#23]

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.

Posted: 2/22/2006 10:21:39 AM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
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.

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?

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.

Posted: 2/22/2006 10:33:38 AM EDT

[#25]

I kinda like the idea about destroying something in mere minutes from order to destruction.

Posted: 2/22/2006 11:11:00 AM EDT

[#26]

FYI, the DOD leases the C4 and D5 missiles from Lockheed

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

Posted: 2/22/2006 11:16:50 AM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
FYI, the DOD leases the C4 and D5 missiles from Lockheed

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.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - U.S. May Arm Trident Subs With Conventional Warheads for Quicker Strike (Page 2 of 2)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us