Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/17/2006 2:01:36 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/17/2006 4:32:30 PM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:02:38 PM EDT
Well I'll be dipped.....
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:09:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/17/2006 2:10:39 PM EDT by PromptCritical]
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?!"
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:10:23 PM EDT
That's just dumb.
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:12:06 PM EDT
I'd buy a couple.

Maybe at next years shot show.
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:12:52 PM EDT
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...
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:13:59 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:14:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/17/2006 2:14:41 PM EDT by NimmerMehr]
What about the accuracy? what is the CPE of the MIRVs of a Trident? Be no good if you missed by 200 yards.



Allowing a NK missile with a nuke warhead to launch at downtown SF would be a whole lot more expensive...



We don't like SF.
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:14:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/17/2006 2:15:12 PM EDT by Zaphod]

Originally Posted By PromptCritical:
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...



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.
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:15:34 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:16:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
That's just dumb.


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.
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:17:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NimmerMehr:
What about the accuracy? what is the CPE of the MIRVs of a Trident? Be no good if you missed by 200 yards.



Allowing a NK missile with a nuke warhead to launch at downtown SF would be a whole lot more expensive...



We don't like SF.


Perhaps you missed the part about GPS terminal guidance?
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:17:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/17/2006 2:26:38 PM EDT by vito113]
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:17:44 PM EDT
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?
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:18:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

CEP is 10 yds



Hmmm.. did you actually read the article?
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:20:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PromptCritical:
They'll find themselves standing at the pearly gates, still saying "WTF was that?!"



Hell doesn't have pearly gates...
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:22:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
That's just dumb.


Your input is noted Admiral.




CPO (ret)
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:22:42 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
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?


I know of no threat to the Trident fleet, funding-wise. Do you know something I don't?
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:29:02 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:30:49 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By PromptCritical:
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...



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.



Nope. Last time I checks, all the SSGN conversions are going to all tomahawks. No in-between.
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:32:26 PM EDT

Originally Posted By vito113:

Originally Posted By NimmerMehr:

Originally Posted By vito113:

CEP is 10 yds



Hmmm.. did you actually read the article?




Currently quoted CEP fo a D5 MIRV is 10yds...


ANdy


Actually, they say 90m. 10m for the proposed warheads with GPS, which is basically the GPS error.
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:32:32 PM EDT
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
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:33:41 PM EDT
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...
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:34:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
That's just dumb.


Your input is noted Admiral.




CPO (ret)






Oh, shit! He pissed off a Chief! NOW you've done it!

Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:35:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PromptCritical:
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?!"



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.
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:37:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By mmx1:
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.
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:37:56 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
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?


I know of no threat to the Trident fleet, funding-wise. Do you know something I don't?



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.
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:39:38 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
That's just dumb.


Your input is noted Admiral.




CPO (ret)






Oh, shit! He pissed off a Chief! NOW you've done it!





Nah. I ain't pissed. I've mellowed in my old age.

I just don't want anyone mistaking me for some damn officer.

<­BR>



Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:41:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
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?


I know of no threat to the Trident fleet, funding-wise. Do you know something I don't?



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.


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.
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:41:32 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/17/2006 2:44:00 PM EDT by Zaphod]


I just don't want anyone mistaking me for some damn officer.




Hey, Hey, HEY!

At least put a "sir" on the end of that!
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:43:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/17/2006 2:43:58 PM EDT by PromptCritical]

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:

Originally Posted By Zaphod:

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:
That's just dumb.


Your input is noted Admiral.



CPO (ret)





Oh, shit! He pissed off a Chief! NOW you've done it!




Nah. I ain't pissed. I've mellowed in my old age.

I just don't want anyone mistaking me for some damn officer.




Officer, CPO, still a damn KHAKI!

Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:48:06 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Zaphod:


I just don't want anyone mistaking me for some damn officer.




Hey, Hey, HEY!

At least put a "sir" on the end of that!




Sir.

Now, please excuse me while I go talk shit about you in the Goat Locker.
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:49:00 PM EDT
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:50:38 PM EDT
"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.
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:53:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Johnny_Reno:

Sir.

Now, please excuse me while I go talk shit about you in the Goat Locker.




Link Posted: 2/17/2006 2:54:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Tromatic:
"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...
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 3:17:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/17/2006 3:19:41 PM EDT by Va_Dinger]

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
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?


I know of no threat to the Trident fleet, funding-wise. Do you know something I don't?



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.


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.



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.
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 3:35:54 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
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?


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.


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.


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.

Hell, by that time ICBM's may be obsolete anyway.

Not if Russia and now the US can perfect manuevering ICBMs.


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.

What both of them? If there are that many. More likely they have 4 ship's worth of missiles sitting around and are trying to find a way to make a use of them.
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 3:47:13 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:
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]
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 3:51:17 PM EDT

Originally Posted By NimmerMehr:
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.



It is a lot less than Minuteman or Peacekeeper.

Link Posted: 2/17/2006 3:54:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
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.



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.
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 3:58:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PromptCritical:


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.




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.
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 4:01:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By H46Driver:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
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.



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.



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.
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 4:09:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/17/2006 4:10:22 PM EDT by Da_Bunny]
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.
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 4:24:11 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PromptCritical:
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.
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 4:41:24 PM EDT
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
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 5:31:47 PM EDT

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By PromptCritical:
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.



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.
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 6:12:22 PM EDT
Expensive but not as much as building a system to drop hypersonic bombs from space...
Link Posted: 2/17/2006 6:19:00 PM EDT

Originally Posted By guardian855:

Originally Posted By PromptCritical:
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.



Link Posted: 2/17/2006 6:24:59 PM EDT
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.

Link Posted: 2/17/2006 6:44:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/17/2006 6:45:22 PM EDT by COLE-CARBINE]
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.....
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top