Rearming SLBM or ICBM with conventional warheads

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The 25% figure is a legacy of the Cold War but I post that only to illustrate that we have way more than enough nukes even if we do reduce the Ohio's nuke SLBMs to 22 from 24. I cant say what nations will do. All I can say is what they have done in the past. And whatever they may do, we have to be prepared for it. In my briefings we had to discuss the enemies most likely coarses of action as well as their worse courses of action and be prepared to deal with all of it.

i was just trieing to say that any nuclear arsenal with effective delivery systems is some sort of deterent, even if its only capable of killing 1 or 2 cities (thats what i ment to say anyway). ok your starting to convince me. Unless chinese nuclear forces were at maximum readieness whan the CSLBM attack was launched the warheads would impact before they could fule their missiles. And i would think that nuclear istallations would be high up on the target list.
So the Chinese threat is negligable, and i cant see any situations in the near future where a conventional conflict between russia and the US would happen. And i guess that a CSLBM/CICBM strike against nuclear targets could replace a nuclear counter force attack.

 

[Big-E]

As far as we know the PRC is a bit light on nuclear weapons, but they are not exactly known for keeping their military numbers transparent. I wouldn't be suprised if their nuclear forces are several times bigger than reported. Not to mention the fact that once they figure out how to build quality boomers they will have as many as the US. This T2 transformation is not wise in this era of nuclear proliferation. We have less than 1,700 warheads and they want to cut the number once again, well everyone forgets that Russia isn't cutting her warheads as prescribed in the START treaties and outnumbers us by 8-10X in warheads. We still need the ability to wipe out her arsenal say nothing about China.

 

[DarthAmerica]

As far as we know the PRC is a bit light on nuclear weapons, but they are not exactly known for keeping their military numbers transparent. I wouldn't be suprised if their nuclear forces are several times bigger than reported. Not to mention the fact that once they figure out how to build quality boomers they will have as many as the US. This T2 transformation is not wise in this era of nuclear proliferation. We have less than 1,700 warheads and they want to cut the number once again, well everyone forgets that Russia isn't cutting her warheads as prescribed in the START treaties and outnumbers us by 8-10X in warheads. We still need the ability to wipe out her arsenal say nothing about China.

I'd say China probably has a few nuclear tricks up its sleeve. But its not likely to be anything we havent delt with before. Even if we are off by a little bit or even "several times" the PRC practices(someday) a limited deterrence policy and doesnt seem to be interested in a Cold War style arms race. IMV T2E2 doesnt have anything to do with proliferation except that it will give us a preemptive non-nuclear option for removing time sensitive threats if we are lucky enough to detect them in time to act. Also, its highly unlikely that the use of these weapons would cause a nuclear war by themselves. Only Russia has the firepower, experience and delivery capability to have a chance and even the Russians would rather escalate any potential conflict rather than have it go out of control. In fact the only way this would be likely to cause a nuclear exchange is if we fired enough of them(1000+) at targets in Russia at targets that would suggest a full scale counter force strike. Even then they might ride it out first in this post Cold War era comfortable in the knowledge that they could respond with SLBMs and Mobile ICBMs.

Also consider this. If we can get the accuracy into the 3m~10m* (CEP) region and the time of flight ~15 minutes or less. We could potentially knock out missiles in their silos/shelters. Even mobile missiles would have a difficult time escaping assuming we could locate them first. Military vehicles have to either be on alert, maintained, deployed and under strict OPSEC/EMCON in order to have a chance at avoiding an attack as rapid as this. Thats no small matter and would be a logistics burden for anything but a small force. If they are not in a ready to fight condition and/or on alert. It would take even a well trained crew longer than 15 minutes to make the TEL ready and disperse. With these capabilities we wouldnt need to use as many nukes even in a nuclear war.


* I've read talk of < 10m CEP as being already possible for E2 in open sources.

 

[Big-E]

In fact the only way this would be likely to cause a nuclear exchange is if we fired enough of them(1000+) at targets in Russia at targets that would suggest a full scale counter force strike.

So your saying we have to fire 1000+ misssiles before Russia would think they were under attack? I doubt the Russians are that irresponsible.:crazy

It only takes one... just look at how little it takes to bring us to Def Con 1.

 

[DarthAmerica]

So your saying we have to fire 1000+ misssiles before Russia would think they were under attack? I doubt the Russians are that irresponsible.:crazy

It only takes one... just look at how little it takes to bring us to Def Con 1.

1000+ is just a figure of speech. What I mean specifically is that the Russians, just like us, have been planning on what to do in the event of a nuclear attack for over 50 years. They have an idea of what a preemptive counterforce nuclear strike would look like based on our doctrine and nuclear OOB. So when(if?) they see a bunch of inbounds that are,

a. on trajectories that end in other countries

b. are too few to effectively take out their nuclear forces

c. lack nuclear weapons effects

d. and are preceeded by notification(unless they are the target which is unlikely)

they will probably not initiate a launch on warning retaliatory strike that will definately get them nuked. Russians just like most sane countries have little to gain from causing a nuclear war and would exhaust all reasonable options before proceeding on their way to oblivion. Even more so since they know we are planning on fielding conventional SLBM force for "prompt" global strike operations. They would also have to assume that if we were to conduct a PGS mission our nuclear capable forces would be in a state of higher readiness since we have fore knowledge of our intentions "just in case" of a misunderstanding. Thus any actions they took would be under heavy scrutiny and they would have to factor that in to avoid actually causing a nuclear war themselves by mistake. In short, the probability of a conventional SLBM force causing a nuclear war is low.

 

[KGB]

I got this I think from FAS. This information might be out of date but...

Russia employs 2 -3 satellites in elliptical orbits. They don't cover enough to detect every launch but they will detect any launch big enough to threaten it's capability to retaliate. In other words they were made for detecting massive first strikes. Assuming sanity , big time nuclear powers shouldn't be so worried by isolated ICBM launches given the massive retalitation at their disposal. They worry about big preemptive launches.

 

[Grand Danois]

Rattlrs

Hey! Who needs conventional ICBM warheads for time-critical targets when you have RATTLRS.

Missiles Aim for Mach 4 Capability
By Rita Boland
May 2006

Development team will test the high-speed system starting next fiscal year.

A demonstration technology program underway is developing U.S. military weapons that can travel at greater supersonic speeds. The Revolutionary Approach to Time-critical Long Range Strike, or RATTLRS, system will expand high-speed flight capabilities and improve performance for expendable supersonic vehicles.

[...]

RATTLRS can strike quickly from an existing platform inside or outside of the engagement area, which is an important function in the current world situation. In the global war on terrorism, high-value targets often move frequently to new locations. Current technologies take hours for a weapon to be programmed and launched and to reach the objective. RATTLRS turns hours into minutes. “It could be launched in the order of two to five minutes,” Johnston says. “You could have a kill mechanism on target within 30 minutes.” With that level of capability, Johnston says that a high-value target eating dinner in a mountainous village could be killed from a ship at long range before the meal is finished.

[...]

MORE

Big bada-boom!

It covers the requirement, right? And no ballistic launches...

 

[Big-E]

Hey! Who needs conventional ICBM warheads for time-critical targets when you have RATTLRS.



Big bada-boom!

It covers the requirement, right? And no ballistic launches...

What good is it if it only goes 250km? That's the same thing as a Sunburn. By the time they finish their research EM-Railguns will be able to do the same job at twice the speed.

 

[Grand Danois]

What good is it if it only goes 250km? That's the same thing as a Sunburn. By the time they finish their research EM-Railguns will be able to do the same job at twice the speed.

Where did you get that 250km figure from?

I reckon 25 min at Mach 3+ is approx. 1400km...

And it is called "Revolutionary Approach to Time-critical Long Range Strike, or RATTLRS?"

 

[Big-E]

Where did you get that 250km figure from?

I reckon 25 min at Mach 3+ is approx. 1400km...

Your estimates of this future system are way off. The DoD requirements for RATTLRS:

* The demonstration vehicles must use a turbine engine as propulsion.
* The demonstration vehicles must be capable of acceleration from a subsonic speed to a minimum cruise condition of Mach 3.0 (~3,000 km/hr) using only turbine power, at a minimum acceleration rate of 0.25 g through the transonic flight region (in level flight).
* Maintain a cruise speed of Mach 3.0 or greater for a period of at least five (5) minutes [implying a range of about 250 km].

The improved version called RATTLRS TDP is supposed to go Mach 4 with a duration of 15 mins. I don't see how they can get a turby to get that kind of fuel efficiency to be able to fit to a Super Bug. Only thing that can reach those speeds at that range is a RAMJET.

 

[Grand Danois]

Fair enough. So the 30 minutes in the example are for the entire kill-chain?

 

[DarthAmerica]

Hey! Who needs conventional ICBM warheads for time-critical targets when you have RATTLRS.



Big bada-boom!

It covers the requirement, right? And no ballistic launches...

No it doesnt cover the requirement at all. This weapon(CSLBM) is for "Prompt Global Strike" missions. Its meant to be able to threaten targets anywhere in the world with little or no warning and without requiring forward deployed forces. Even a Mach 4 weapon deployed from a manned subsonic platform or ship is limited by the time it takes to actually deploy the platform to a decent firing position. So the kill chain is 30 minutes + the time it takes to deploy and support the firing platform. Unless you have a ship or aircraft in the region thats a minimum of 12 to 24 hours before you would be able to fire the weapon from an aircraft coming from CONUS and that assumes you have aircraft on alert and prepared to carry out such an attack. It also assumes that you could get overflight rights. In the case of a ship just forget about the word prompt unless you actually have the USN on station in the region.

By contrast, an ICBM or SLBM could be deployed almost immediately. Anytime, anywhere in the world and reach its target within 15 to 30 minutes of the order with absolutely no risk to personel, no deployment related logistics, no politics and very little chance of being stopped.

 

[Big-E]

By contrast, an ICBM or SLBM could be deployed almost immediately. Anytime, anywhere in the world and reach its target within 15 to 30 minutes of the order with absolutely... no politics.

I doubt that.:roll

 

[DarthAmerica]

I doubt that.:roll

In the context that I'm using the word politics I mean no need to secure overflight or basing rights. And no possibility of creating another Sen. John McCain or dead/captured DoD personel being dragged through some third world street after being shot down. I see little room for doubt about any of that.

 

[Big-E]

In the context that I'm using the word politics I mean no need to secure overflight or basing rights. And no possibility of creating another Sen. John McCain or dead/captured DoD personel being dragged through some third world street after being shot down. I see little room for doubt about any of that.

WERD!

If it saves lives I'm all for it but we'd have to tell all the governments with tracking capabilities what we intend to do with the launch.

 

[DarthAmerica]

WERD!

If it saves lives I'm all for it but we'd have to tell all the governments with tracking capabilities what we intend to do with the launch.

I think its really a life saver in the long run. And on both sides too. No need to kill the guys on the other side who operate the SAMs, AAA or EW radars on SEAD missions and no need to give them something to shoot back at and also less risk of collateral damage. No instead most if not all ordinance is on the targets we actually want to take out unless of course the SLBM attack is to preceed a wider scale attack.

Launch locations for ground based ICBMs would help to prevent mistakes and SLBM trajectories need not overfly uninvolved nations. Also trajectories are easily identified and pre launch notifications could be given if necessary to other nuclear powers.

 

[Awang se]

WERD!

If it saves lives I'm all for it but we'd have to tell all the governments with tracking capabilities what we intend to do with the launch.

Yep, that's right. Russia and china posses a ballistic missile warning system and any launch might trigger the alarm. furthermore, tis two countries have a close relationship with some potential enemies of united states and may pass a launch warning to them. better still they might take it as a pre-emp and launch a retaliatory strike at continental USA

 

[DarthAmerica]

Yep, that's right. Russia and china posses a ballistic missile warning system and any launch might trigger the alarm. furthermore, tis two countries have a close relationship with some potential enemies of united states and may pass a launch warning to them. better still they might take it as a pre-emp and launch a retaliatory strike at continental USA

Sigh...guys please. First, Russia has a very limited Ballistic Missile Early Warning System, IIRC the last SAT they put up was in 2002 and it they have a 3 year service life. As far as SLBMs go, Russia and China are essentially blind to sea based missile launch. i.e. the attack could be over before Russian or PRC defense officials are notified.

Its a common myth that the detection of a few ICBMs will trigger this massive retaliatory strike. Thats just not reality and not how this works. To trigger that kind of response a nother nation would have to be able to detect it in advance. Something not guranteed by any means. Then, it would have to be an attack of a size far greater than the relatively few conventional sea based missiles we are planning. Its not Russia or China who will be passing launch warnings. Rather the USA will be passing warnings to Russia and China which is why you see proposals for things like JDEC.

 

[Big-E]

Sigh...guys please. First, Russia has a very limited Ballistic Missile Early Warning System, IIRC the last SAT they put up was in 2002 and it they have a 3 year service life. Second they have periods of blindness over CONUS that last several hours. As far as SLBMs go, Russia and China are essentially blind to Trident Missile launches in the Atlantic or Pacific. i.e. the attack could be over before Russian or PRC defense officials are notified.

The very problems you illustrate with the Russian tracking system are why this is dangerous. Those gaps mean they can't project the inbound trajectory resulting in misunderstanding and death.:shudder PRC has been launching all kinds of classified and dual use military satellites. I'm pretty confident they can detect launches.

Its a common myth that the detection of a few ICBMs will trigger this massive retaliatory strike. Thats just not reality and not how this works. To trigger that kind of response a nother nation would have to be able to detect it in advance. Something not guranteed by any means.

So you want us to rely on the chance that they miss it? :shudder

 

[DarthAmerica]

The very problems you illustrate with the Russian tracking system are why this is dangerous. Those gaps mean they can't project the inbound trajectory resulting in misunderstanding and death.:shudder PRC has been launching all kinds of classified and dual use military satellites. I'm pretty confident they can detect launches.

So you want us to rely on the chance that they miss it? :shudder

I think you are misunderstanding a few things or perhaps I'm being too coy in my explainations. Look at the level of detail I'm going into. The Russians DONT HAVE the capability to detect a sea launch. Neither do the Chinese. Even if they did, and I await any credible evidence to the contrary, the very short time of flight would have the warheads hitting targets with obvious non nuclear effects within the time it would take for them to organize a counter strike. Especially in the case of primitive Chinese ICBMs that take hours to even be made ready to fire! An analogy would be a sniper firing into a group of people with a flash and sound suppressed weapon. The round will hit the target before the report of the rifle is visable or audible. Everyone in the group will know who the target is at that point. The person in the group representing the PRC would have the equivilent of a muzzle loaded black powder firearm(Liquid Fueled ICBMs). Even if they wanted to shoot back. They wouldnt have time to react. In the case of the Russians, they could shoot back, but why? They would be fully aware of the situation at that point and not in any danger. Think about it.

Its not dangerous if you understand how these new weapons will be used. i.e. operational doctrine. Suggesting otherwise is like saying that everytime a B-2 takes off its dangerous since it could be loaded with nukes and is difficult as best if not impossible to track.