Swampfox157
New Member
It is NOT a risk at all. IIRC, as a signatory of some ballistic-weapons treaty or another, the US is supposed to give warning of test launches.
New American USAF Bomber
- Thread starter JonMusser
- Start date
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
AND
I could be mistaken, but I believe the 'risk' which Waylander is referring to, is that a warshot (not a test launch) using an ICBM armed with a conventional warhead targetting a location in south/central Asia, could also possibly be a nuclear warhead aimed at Russia, China, Pakistan or India. The question which needs to be asked, is just how ready are Russian, Chinese, Pakistani or Indian political/defence decision makers, to listen to a communication from the US saying something to the effect of "There is no need to be alarmed, we launched a conventional warhead against a terrorist camp/bad people lair/filming location of upcoming season of reality show Jersey Shore, we are not launching a nuclear weapon at Russia/China/Pakistan/India..."
If I were in such a position, I would assume any inbound launch was a worst case scenario, namely the opening launch of a nuclear attack. Given the potential impact a nuclear weapon can have, part of the MAD doctrine response was to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike prior to the inbound strike detonating, since the ability to response after an initial strike would most likely be significantly reduced, if not eliminated altogether.
The ability to strike at long ranges with extreme speed is one of the dangers of a prompt global strike capability. Being able to 'reach out' and hit a target anywhere in the world within ~20 minutes, given the very small size a nuclear device can be (~10 kg) for a small yield warhead introduces the potential for any such strike to be the opening gambit in eliminating a rival power. This in turn means that other nuclear powers have a very small window to detect a strike, determine whether the strike is a threat to them, and initiate a response if needed, prior to the arrival of the potential nuclear strike.
Such scenarios IMO should not be dismissed lightly, as to ignore the potential outcome could result in something which never happened during the Cold War, namely a nuclear exchange.
-Cheers
localhost127
Member
i apologize for the tangent, but how are anti ship ballistic missiles getting away without the same scrutiny?
could the USN say any detected ballistic launch into (a specific battle group's vicinity) somewhere in the ocean will automatically be treated as a strategic weapons launch? would that be deterrence against such use?
could the USN say any detected ballistic launch into (a specific battle group's vicinity) somewhere in the ocean will automatically be treated as a strategic weapons launch? would that be deterrence against such use?
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Anti-ship ballistic missiles IMO are not 'getting away' without scrutiny either, but there are several differences between them, at least for now.
From my perspective, any detection of an inbound ballistic missile apart from SRBM, should be treated as a potentially nuclear-armed missile. This means that a warshot taken at a USN CBG by the PRC using an 'anti-ship' ballistic missile could potentially trigger a US nuclear response, and all that entails. Now apart from a scenario like that, no one else would be lobbing 'anti-ship' ballistic missiles at sea-going targets, just use a 'normal' AShM.
Where there is a significant difference between AShBM and a conventionally-armed ICBM is the range increment. AShBM (at least at present) do not have the extreme long range of an ICBM while they are long-ranged when compared to most other munitions, they are still an intra-theatre weapon.
-Cheers
That's exactly what I mean. Many potential hotspots where such a weapon could be used are close to nuclear powers which may very well make the wrong decision with a conventional ICBM coming their way.
The reason Russia doesn't start WWIII each time a test flight is made is because the US told them of the test, just like in the future they will tell when a strike on a military target proceeds. I don't see it much more of a risk than firing a cruise missile (which can also carry a nuclear payload) albeit other countries will need to be informed as the launch itself is detectable.[/QUOTE]
except when we forgot to
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident"]Norwegian rocket incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Black_Brant.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Black_Brant.jpg/220px-Black_Brant.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/d/d6/Black_Brant.jpg/220px-Black_Brant.jpg[/ame]
except when we forgot to
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegian_rocket_incident"]Norwegian rocket incident - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:Black_Brant.jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d6/Black_Brant.jpg/220px-Black_Brant.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/d/d6/Black_Brant.jpg/220px-Black_Brant.jpg[/ame]
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Moahunter, before making a snarky comment like this, re-read what I actually posted and pay attention. I specifically mentioned a 'warshot' not a test flight.
The flight trajectory of a warshot targeting a location somewhere in South or Central Asia is very different from the flight profile of a missile test launch. Given the possible trajectories of an inbound ballistic missile targeting something in that region, and the very short response window prior to impact the four nuclear powers in that region would have, do you honestly think that those four countries would believe the US that an incoming strike was conventional? Even if advised of the strike immediately after launch?
If you do believe that other countries would trust the US in such a situation, you either have enormous faith in people, or spectacular naiveté.
As for the employment of cruise missiles vs. ballistic missiles, you seem to not understand some fundamental differences between the delivery system performances and corresponding scenario and range of responses.
Yes, a cruise missile like the Tomahawk can (and used to) have 'special' warheads, specifically nuclear ones. However, a tomahawk follows a nap of the earth flight profile, has a max range of ~1,000 miles, and travels at ~0.9 Mach, which means that a target at max range would be nearly two hours flight time before the cruise missile reached its target. To put it another way, if the USN launched a cruise missile from a vessel at the edge of international waters in the Arabian Sea, off the coast of Iran and Pakistan at a target in Central or South Asia... The cruise missile could potentially hit a target as far away as the south borders of Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, or possibly the far western border of mainland China, and it would take nearly two hours to get to the target.
A ballistic missile OTOH could be launched from the continental US and still reach those same target areas, but only taking perhaps 15 - 20 minutes to reach the target. Also given the flight profile and a possibly maneuvering warhead, once the inbound warhead is traveling on a ballistic trajectory, it is possible that the warhead could be targeting and reach other areas apart from where the target was claimed to be. And all of this, Russia, China, India and Pakistan would have a matter of only a few minutes to detect, decide, and act/react to.
Again, all the above is if the US were to have developed a Prompt Global Strike system based upon using ICBM's and the US started to take 'warshots' at targets within South and Central Asia.
It is also worth noting that IIRC US defence readiness was routinely raised every time NORAD detected a non-US rocket launch, including launches for the Soviet space programme. This was done in part because many of the rockets the Soviets were using for their space programme were developed from rockets first deployed by the Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces (Soviet nuclear weapons). Given the possibility of a FOBS being launched and triggering a major disruption in US/allied comms and ELINT systems, NORAD typically stood by to advise if a launch was likely a nuke, based upon what seemed to be the rocket flightpath. Until NORAD was confident that a launch was 'mundane' there were usually provisions in place for a rapid nuclear strike, launched before a Soviet FOBS could cripple US C4 systems.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Moahunter, posts like the above are why a number of other posters are running out of patience with you and your circular arguments and tendency to ignore what others are posting. I have quoted and bolded the beginning elements of my last post for emphasis.
I have consistently and repeatedly been discussing the potential for actual warshots taken with an ICBM-based Prompt Global Strike capability, and what/how other nuclear/ICBM-armed nations would respond to US usage of ICBM's to deliver conventional munitions. The nuclear/missile powers that are either in or border the South/Central Asian regions where the US would most likely seek to utilize such a system if it were ever to be developed to an operational capability are Russia, China, India and Pakistan. Frankly IMO, these countries are f*ck all concerned about US testing programmes. However, if the US were to actually finish a conventionally-warheaded, ICBM-based delivery system, and then these countries started to see the US launch said systems in trajectories which could delivery a warhead into their respective territories or airspace, then the situation is entirely different.
Again, and for the last time, I have not been taking about foreign alarm at a US testing programme but the implications of the US actually employing such a system to make 'warshots'.
Well that's nice and fine, but we were discussing the bomber / glider that is launched from an ICBM based missile (which could be fired in any direction), not a conventional ICBM that will be "war shot" in the direction of asia or similar. This was the post link concerning the system:
Contact lost with hypersonic glider - Yahoo!7
I don't think other nations would be able to do squat. The scenario is simple:
"CIA - bad guy is visiting right now a safe house in Pakistan. We could fire the global strike and kill him if we act ASAP".
"US President - lets proceed".
"US President Advisor to Russia and China- We are firing an ICBM that will launch our bomber to strike at an enemy. All you will be able to detect is the launch flare, the missile itself is suborbital and won't leave US airspace"
"Russia - Oh, we will start WWIII if you do that"
"US President Advisor- yeah, right, that would be dumb, we know you won't, anymore than we would start WWIII if you use a missle to blow up your public enemy number 1 in Georgia".
[Mod Edit: Warning issued for repeated attempts to be obtuse. Hate to take a heavy handed approach to moderating your posts but you are cleary either trolling or not very bright. Change your mode of engagement before the Mod Team decides to issue infractions. Please take the trouble to read and digest considered posts before responding to them. ]
Last edited by a moderator:
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
At this point, I see no point in continuing any further discussion with you on this topic, as you seem to have a fundamental difference of opinion, or are being deliberately obtuse with respect to the potential risk.
GelbOne
New Member
not to beat a dead horse, and sorry for continuing, (but I'm interested in this), but what do ICBMs have to do with bombers?
not to split hairs, but a bomber is an aerial vehicle which expends anti-ground munitions and can return to base.
an ICBM-based glider bomb is more like the USAF's "Global Hammer" program (or something like that), or the within 1 hour strike/kill capability ANYWHERE on the face of the Earth.
t68
Well-Known Member
Development of a prompt strike capability is only entering its development stage of testing flight characteristics in the atmosphere and the ability to launch it, at this point in time it envisioned that once the concept become more developed it would be used from CONUS and not deployed from naval assets, but will be under USAF control which controls ICBM for defence.
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
http://www.darpa.mil/Our_Work/TTO/Falcon_HTV-2_Three_Key_Technical_Challenges.aspx#Guidance
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5QHDV6S3jc"]DARPA's Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2 (HTV 2) Test Flight Profile - YouTube[/nomedia]
According to GF 0012 there a few programs researching the hypersonic options with, Australia is cooperating in running the programs so it will be interesting to see what develops if any information is released for public consumption.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
At this point there is some debate as to the future of US strategic strike. The venerable B-52 and the high speed B-1 bombers, while having tremendous payload and range, no longer have first day strategic 'reach' being unable to penetrate contested airspace with a reasonable chance of success. Nevermind contested airspace. There is of course still the B-2 bombers, but with only 21 having been built, and two lost in accidents, it seems unlikely that 19 B-2's could provide the desired degree of strategic reach and availability in a future conflict. Especially when foreign sensor and comms systems continue to improve, to the point where the LO capabilities of the B-2 could be reduced, if not negated completely.
This leaves the USAF in the position of needing to plan for the future, i.e. "what do we do when the B-52's and B-1's have to be retired?" One option would be for a follow-on manned LO strategic strike/bomber aircraft with intercontinental range. An additional, or perhaps subset option would be to have a much smaller, long-ranged LO strike aircraft, something with a payload and range comparable to the F-111. The next option is for some form of LO UAV/UCAV, with very long range and the ability to carry a significant payload, and utilizing these to penetrate hostile aircraft.
Then there is the testing being done for Prompt Global Strike, which currently involves the use of ICBM's as launch vehicles. In the future there may be involvement of hypersonic missiles, but not as yet. The principle behind Prompt Global Strike is for the US to have the ability launch from the US and hit a target, anywhere in the world, within ~20 minutes (at least that is the timeframe I keep hearing...). While the capability sounds good in theory, IMO it would be dangerous in practice/application, but I have already covered what I see as potential 'problems' so I do not feel the need to repeat myself.
-Cheers
two? only one has crashed; 20 are still in service
Too bad but it seems Arclight is dead for now.. for such a "game changing" system its sad they can't find a couple of million to keep the project on life support at least. It really isn't a PGS system but it would allow a much quicker response than a Tomahawk.
DARPA Halts High-Speed, Long-Range Weapon Development Program | Fabio Ghioni
DARPA Halts High-Speed, Long-Range Weapon Development Program | Fabio Ghioni
No, its “Russia – This is a violation of our airspace!”
Then when you launch anyway they have the Russian version of the DEW line track it coming over the pole and pass data to an S-500 battery on their southern border so that missiles can be waiting at altitude when it arrives in the area, to shoot it down. :ar15
The vehicle is in the atmosphere so Space Law does not apply. There are a number of international treaties that specify that you cannot overfly another country without their permission unless you are at war with them. So when they file complaints with the UN and the International Court for violating their airspace, don’t expect to win. :hul
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Hmm... There was the B-2 crash in Guam in Feb. 2008, and I seem to remember there being a second incident not long after that. Checking some sites though, it seems to state that 19 are in operational service, with the 20th serving as a flight test vehicle to validate software and weapons upgrades.
I will keep looking because I do remember reports of a second B-2 incident, not long after the crash in Guam.
-Cheers
GelbOne
New Member
I definitely agree about how the B-52's don't really have a strategic niche anymore, and maybe the B-2's could fulfill the role, but the problem is that the USAF (at least publicly) keeps them in Montana.
Maybe, if B-52's could be modified into long-range ATGM "trucks".
I dunno how solid the science is on this, but it might go like this:
1) B-52s (modified for high altitude flight) are launched from base X and cruise just-outside of radar/sensor range of Target Y
2) B-52s launch ATGMs UPwards and RTB
[NOTE: these ATGMs have glide surfaces as well as booster stages]
3) ATGMs boost upwards, jettison boosters, and glide towards the target (thus eliminating IR signature)
4) ATGMs reach air over Target Y, turn downwards, and expend all remaining fuel 'till they reach terminal velocity over the target.
in that way, the large payload capability of the B-52 is put to use, but the bombers themselves aren't being put in the line of fire.
Maybe, if B-52's could be modified into long-range ATGM "trucks".
I dunno how solid the science is on this, but it might go like this:
1) B-52s (modified for high altitude flight) are launched from base X and cruise just-outside of radar/sensor range of Target Y
2) B-52s launch ATGMs UPwards and RTB
[NOTE: these ATGMs have glide surfaces as well as booster stages]
3) ATGMs boost upwards, jettison boosters, and glide towards the target (thus eliminating IR signature)
4) ATGMs reach air over Target Y, turn downwards, and expend all remaining fuel 'till they reach terminal velocity over the target.
in that way, the large payload capability of the B-52 is put to use, but the bombers themselves aren't being put in the line of fire.
I assume you mean crusie missiles, not ATGM's. If so, the science is very solid. In fact they had already done it back in the early 80’s if I remember right. :hul
GelbOne
New Member
yeah, like cruise missiles, but with a larger net payload.
(BTW: my mistake, I meant AGM not ATGM)
for example, the current Tomahawk has a 1000 lb warhead, while the current AGM-65 Maverick has a 125lb max warhead. So, mathematically, 5 Mavericks equal One Tomahawk's payload.
{note, this is independent of "specialty" payloads, like shaped charges, HEAT warheads, etc.}
So, why not use high-altitude fighter/attacker aircraft (Like the F-15E, which can hold 6 Mavericks) to lob modified missiles at high altitudes.
Basically, this method would serve the PURPOSE of cruise missiles, but would allow multiple munition support, as well as increase PoK (prob. of kill) against hardened, CIWS-enabled systems.
the B-52 has a 90,000lb payload, which is about 130 full-load Mavericks, which is a total 16,250lb of warhead.
now, if one squadron of B-52s expended ordnance in this manner, think of the hell this would rain on any surface enemies....:ar15
(BTW: my mistake, I meant AGM not ATGM)
for example, the current Tomahawk has a 1000 lb warhead, while the current AGM-65 Maverick has a 125lb max warhead. So, mathematically, 5 Mavericks equal One Tomahawk's payload.
{note, this is independent of "specialty" payloads, like shaped charges, HEAT warheads, etc.}
So, why not use high-altitude fighter/attacker aircraft (Like the F-15E, which can hold 6 Mavericks) to lob modified missiles at high altitudes.
Basically, this method would serve the PURPOSE of cruise missiles, but would allow multiple munition support, as well as increase PoK (prob. of kill) against hardened, CIWS-enabled systems.
the B-52 has a 90,000lb payload, which is about 130 full-load Mavericks, which is a total 16,250lb of warhead.
now, if one squadron of B-52s expended ordnance in this manner, think of the hell this would rain on any surface enemies....:ar15