Reinstitute US Pershing 2 for use vs A2/AD?

[Ranger25]

With many militarys around the world fielding conventional tipped IRBMs I'd like to discuss why the US is not. I see the old P2 a possible strike weapon to provide bombardment of A2/AD assets from long range. This long range bombardment would soften A2/AD assets with minimal risk to aircrews and Carrier groups could be left outside of opponents weapons ranges until their assets had been softend. As the Chinese are Fielding the DF21 the P2 has similar range characteristics. I understand the debate of what an IRBM launch may concern nations of a nuclear launch but this has seemingly only stopped the US. The US could simply rebuild the P2 to lower acquisition costs totally eliminating R&D.

Thoughts?

 

[Volkodav]

I suppose it could be argued that the launch signature of an IRBM is different to a ICBM therefore if all US IRBMs are conventional only there can be not doubt that a launch of one is non-nuclear. Probably worth investigating as a conventional IRBM would be a suitable response in many situations, especially if a new lower CEP warhead was developed.

 

[Ranger25]

I suppose it could be argued that the launch signature of an IRBM is different to a ICBM therefore if all US IRBMs are conventional only there can be not doubt that a launch of one is non-nuclear. Probably worth investigating as a conventional IRBM would be a suitable response in many situations, especially if a new lower CEP warhead was developed.

Thank you, I like it. I see multiple uses not only for suppression or A2/AD but for potential long range bombardment of regional foes such as Iran. All done with relative safety of US aircrews

 

[Volkodav]

Thank you, I like it. I see multiple uses not only for suppression or A2/AD but for potential long range bombardment of regional foes such as Iran. All done with relative safety of US aircrews

On doing some reading it appears all the missiles were destroyed, warheads modified and redeployed and the rockets consumed in controlled burns. There are no missiles the re-role as conventional IRBMs.

Basically the only solution would be a new program and if they do so they should make whatever is developed compatible with the USNs various current and future surface and submarine VLS.

 

[colay]

You would want a much longer ranged weapon than the Pershing 2 which is credited with a 1,100 mile range. The various gliding hypersonic vehicles being explored under the Prompt Global,Strike initiative would have intercontinental range. They would operate predominantly within the atmosphere so they would not be mistaken for nuke ballistic missiles.

 

[Volkodav]

You would want a much longer ranged weapon than the Pershing 2 which is credited with a 1,100 mile range. The various gliding hypersonic vehicles being explored under the Prompt Global,Strike initiative would have intercontinental range. They would operate predominantly within the atmosphere so they would not be mistaken for nuke ballistic missiles.

Fair call, probably a better way to go. It would be good for the US to have and test an equivalent to the DF-21 too, even if just to have an effective target to hone the SM-3 and 6 as well as ESSM Block two against. Develop and test the ASBM, prove it works and then start swatting them out of the sky in more and more complex tests to demonstrate each layer of defence is up to the job. DF-21 wouldn't be so scary if for instance an ANZAC was to successfully engage a saturation strike against a simulated carrier target that the frigate was escorting.

 

[Ranger25]

You would want a much longer ranged weapon than the Pershing 2 which is credited with a 1,100 mile range. The various gliding hypersonic vehicles being explored under the Prompt Global,Strike initiative would have intercontinental range. They would operate predominantly within the atmosphere so they would not be mistaken for nuke ballistic missiles.

Hello, yes Global Strike sounds like very promising technology we may hope to employ in the next 15-20 years. My thoughts were much more mundane given the budgetary constraints facing The Pentagon. Rebuilding some P2s could be relatively cheap, the tech is available today, and could be ideally fielded in enough numbers to provide some SEAD in an. A2/AD environment.

 

[colay]

Hello, yes Global Strike sounds like very promising technology we may hope to employ in the next 15-20 years. My thoughts were much more mundane given the budgetary constraints facing The Pentagon. Rebuilding some P2s could be relatively cheap, the tech is available today, and could be ideally fielded in enough numbers to provide some SEAD in an. A2/AD environment.

If the intent is to provide a strike capability to counter A2/AD, you would preferably want to do so outside of said defense zone. Pershing 2's short range would put it within reach of enemy strike. Also, basing becomes an issue. Getting host nation approval to base offensive missiles is not assured and problematic to,say the least. Which is why the ability to,strike rapidly from extended distances, from US sovereign territory is advantageous. For example, it's not "Prompt" but Global Strike by B-2s flying from,CONUS is a proven approach.

 

[Waylander]

It is probably cheaper and less complex do just reintroduce GLCMs albeit with conventional Tomahawks in them. One could just take the new TacToms right of the production line.

With 3 missiles per launcher and easy reloading on land a battery of 8 cuild sustain a healthy barrage to supplement the USNs sea based arsenal.

For shorter lobs just over the border the US employs ATACMS anyway.

 

[colay]

1

It is probably cheaper and less complex do just reintroduce GLCMs albeit with conventional Tomahawks in them. One could just take the new TacToms right of the production line.

With 3 missiles per launcher and easy reloading on land a battery of 8 cuild sustain a healthy barrage to supplement the USNs sea based arsenal.

For shorter lobs just over the border the US employs ATACMS anyway.

A lot would depend on the target and if this is time- critical. Too bad Clinton didn't have anything faster than the barrage of cruise missiles he sent after UBL in 1998...

 

[Ranger25]

1


A lot would depend on the target and if this is time- critical. Too bad Clinton didn't have anything faster than the barrage of cruise missiles he sent after UBL in 1998...

I like the GLCM idea too. I still am surprised that that give the proliferation of D 21 type weapons The Pentagon doesn't see the need for that type of offensive weapon. I see the main advantage is strike capabilities without committing aircrews. I do agree as well the Global Strike is very promising but a Long way off

 

[Volkodav]

1


A lot would depend on the target and if this is time- critical. Too bad Clinton didn't have anything faster than the barrage of cruise missiles he sent after UBL in 1998...

Interesting concept, would there have been a September 11 or the subsequent War on Terror if the US had had a prompt global strike capability in 98? Very interesting.

 

[StobieWan]

Any weapon requires political will to use - it's said that US SFOR had eyes on UBL, and weren't given the execute order. If you can't pull the trigger on a rifle I doubt IRBM's could have done any better.

 

[Waylander]

The time factor is indeed important if it is about striking single time critical targets of opportunity.

It is not when we talk about dismantling say the IADS of Iran. Some batteries of conventional GLCMs sitting in Bahrain and Kuwait should add alot of long range firepower to forces in the region.

 

[Ranger25]

The time factor is indeed important if it is about striking single time critical targets of opportunity.

It is not when we talk about dismantling say the IADS of Iran. Some batteries of conventional GLCMs sitting in Bahrain and Kuwait should add alot of long range firepower to forces in the region.

I agree with the benefits of adding some longer ranger regional punch via GLCMs. I see it as the P2/GLCM and the Prompt Global. Strike could have two distinct roles. The P2\GLCM for long range suppression and strike. The Global Strike for more precision/surgical/time sensitive requirements.
I do believe the potential lower costs of fielding existing tech like the P2 or ideally BGM109 that had a 2500km range still offers distinct advantages to theatre commands.

 

[Volkodav]

There was discussion of using / adapting older Standard family missiles to tactical strike in the 80s-90s to give the USN a supersonic strike weapon for rapid response against point targets. I imagine something like that, with the right type of seeker / guidance could have become quite effective within reach of the coast. More a short range semi - ballistic missile rather than a IRBM though.

 

[Bonza]

Indeed, a strike variant of the Standard would have been an interesting capability. I guess maybe it was considered somewhat unnecessary in the face of the USN's massive Tomahawk arsenal. Wonder how the costs stack up? I think Tomahawk is probably more expensive but given the performance of Standard it can't be a cheap missile either... presumably you could fit a GPS/INS guidance package (as in, one capable of accurately hitting land targets) without too many issues?

 

[Volkodav]

The idea was to convert surplus older missiles I believe, get some use out of them as a rapid response strike missile. I know stuff all about the project, not even it's name,others may know more and be able to help out. I believe it was concurrent a navalised MRLS and ATAMS, ending up with nothing. Where Standard had the edge was its ability to use existing launchers.

 

[colay]

There was discussion of using / adapting older Standard family missiles to tactical strike in the 80s-90s to give the USN a supersonic strike weapon for rapid response against point targets. I imagine something like that, with the right type of seeker / guidance could have become quite effective within reach of the coast. More a short range semi - ballistic missile rather than a IRBM though.

I believe this was,DARPA's ArcLight concept that.would capitalize on VLS on Navy ships to provide a high-speed theater-strike capability. ArcLight was terminated but work on hypersonic glide vehicle tech lives on.

 

[Bonza]

The idea was to convert surplus older missiles I believe, get some use out of them as a rapid response strike missile. I know stuff all about the project, not even it's name,others may know more and be able to help out. I believe it was concurrent a navalised MRLS and ATAMS, ending up with nothing. Where Standard had the edge was its ability to use existing launchers.

That's what I liked about it, plenty of missile bodies in stock to modify and easy to carry on existing warships, and it's speed relative to existing strike options. It would be interesting to see what kind of range you could get out of a boosted Standard flying a straight ballistic path to a land target (not that I'd know anything about actual missile range bands). Presumably you could get more distance out of the thing if the end game only required hitting a static land based target as opposed to one that's supersonic, airborne and manoeuvring...