We7det_el_qetal
New Member
What are ur opinions about the effectiveness of such systems?
Cluster tipped ballistic missiles
- Thread starter We7det_el_qetal
- Start date
We7det_el_qetal
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #3
I'm talking conventional heads here not WMD heads
to clarify:
consider a unitary scud-b head versus a cluster one
what are the advantages and disadvantages of both in ur opinion?
to clarify:
consider a unitary scud-b head versus a cluster one
what are the advantages and disadvantages of both in ur opinion?
We7det_el_qetal
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #4
"Cluster warheads have been attached to ballistic missiles and cruise missiles for some years. The US, in its attempt to retaliate against Osama Bin Laden for his alleged role in the bombing of US embassies in Africa, attacked a base camp in Afghanistan in 1998 with cruise missiles tipped with conventional and cluster warheads."
"Soviet designers have been working on cluster munition missile warheads for forty years. In 1963-64, the Soviets conducted trials of a missile based cluster warhead with 42 submunitions. Each submunitions weighed 7.5kg (1.7kg of explosive) and was designed to kill people and destroy lightly armored vehicles over an area of several hectares. The missile was adopted for use in 1969.(94)
In 1963-1964 trials of 9M21-OF missiles with 9N18-OF cluster warhead were started. 9N18-OF weighed around 400 kilograms. It contained 42 combat elements weighing 7.5 kilogram each. Each element contained 1.7 kilogram of explosive. Fragments of the combat elements of one rocket could destroy personnel and lightly armored vehicles of the enemy in the area of several hectares. 9N18-OF warhead was equipped with a radio fuse. The warhead was actuated at an altitude of 1,000-1,400 meters. 9M21-OF rocket was adopted only in 1969. For the training purposes 9M21E and 9M31E1 rockets were also used.
Tochka-U 9M79-1 (also known as the SS-21 "Scarab")
The ballistic missile Tochka-U, can "blast a seven hectare area with cluster bombs."(95) When it went on the market in 1993, the Tochka-U ("Improved Point") had a maximum range of 120km, claimed an accuracy of 15m, and had independent aiming, control, and check-out systems. It carried either a 120kg high explosive warhead or 50 submunitions.(96)
The accuracy and reliability of the Tochka-U have recently come into question. A test shot of a Ukrainian Tochka-U with a dummy warhead hit an apartment building in the Kiev suburb or Brovary on April 20, 2000. Three people were killed and five injured. The "high-precision" rocket was built at the Votkinsk, Russia plant in 1990(97) and had an expected lifespan of 10 years.(98) The commander of the Ukrainian Missile Troops and Artillery stated that it was the will of God that the missile did not hit the Chernobyl nuclear plant.(99)
Over 60 tactical missiles, mainly Tochkas but also some SS-1 Scuds, had been used by mid-November 1999 in Chechnya.(100)
Iskander-E (SS-X-26)
The new Russian tactical missile, the Iskander-E, has a reported range of 35 to 280km with an estimated circular error probable of 30m.(101)
Warhead types offered for the Iskander-E include blast-fragmentation and penetrating designs, and several types of cluster payloads including area-denial, antipersonnel and anti-vehicle, runway- cratering, and active submunitions (TGSMs) to engage armoured vehicles. Russian Army units will also have additional payloads, reported to include fuel-air explosive (FAE), electro-magnetic pulse (EMP), and "specialised penetration" warheads.(102)
The maximum payload is 480kg, and the cluster bomb load reportedly is 54 submunitions.(103) Its self-homing guidance system makes it an attractive export item, as the user need not necessarily rely on satellite guidance which can be cut-off or jammed,(104) but its reliability in heavy cloud cover has been questioned.(105) Twenty two countries have ballistic missiles, and seven construct them. China and North Korea are the major exporters, and their systems are basically upgrades of Scud technology. Analysts predict the Iskander-E (the "E" stands for "export") will be an attractive medium range missile on the international arms market.(106) "
Source: http://www.mcc.org/clusterbomb/report/chapter2.htm
So what do u think guys about the prospects of such a wepon combined with top attack munition MOTIV-3M.
"Soviet designers have been working on cluster munition missile warheads for forty years. In 1963-64, the Soviets conducted trials of a missile based cluster warhead with 42 submunitions. Each submunitions weighed 7.5kg (1.7kg of explosive) and was designed to kill people and destroy lightly armored vehicles over an area of several hectares. The missile was adopted for use in 1969.(94)
In 1963-1964 trials of 9M21-OF missiles with 9N18-OF cluster warhead were started. 9N18-OF weighed around 400 kilograms. It contained 42 combat elements weighing 7.5 kilogram each. Each element contained 1.7 kilogram of explosive. Fragments of the combat elements of one rocket could destroy personnel and lightly armored vehicles of the enemy in the area of several hectares. 9N18-OF warhead was equipped with a radio fuse. The warhead was actuated at an altitude of 1,000-1,400 meters. 9M21-OF rocket was adopted only in 1969. For the training purposes 9M21E and 9M31E1 rockets were also used.
Tochka-U 9M79-1 (also known as the SS-21 "Scarab")
The ballistic missile Tochka-U, can "blast a seven hectare area with cluster bombs."(95) When it went on the market in 1993, the Tochka-U ("Improved Point") had a maximum range of 120km, claimed an accuracy of 15m, and had independent aiming, control, and check-out systems. It carried either a 120kg high explosive warhead or 50 submunitions.(96)
The accuracy and reliability of the Tochka-U have recently come into question. A test shot of a Ukrainian Tochka-U with a dummy warhead hit an apartment building in the Kiev suburb or Brovary on April 20, 2000. Three people were killed and five injured. The "high-precision" rocket was built at the Votkinsk, Russia plant in 1990(97) and had an expected lifespan of 10 years.(98) The commander of the Ukrainian Missile Troops and Artillery stated that it was the will of God that the missile did not hit the Chernobyl nuclear plant.(99)
Over 60 tactical missiles, mainly Tochkas but also some SS-1 Scuds, had been used by mid-November 1999 in Chechnya.(100)
Iskander-E (SS-X-26)
The new Russian tactical missile, the Iskander-E, has a reported range of 35 to 280km with an estimated circular error probable of 30m.(101)
Warhead types offered for the Iskander-E include blast-fragmentation and penetrating designs, and several types of cluster payloads including area-denial, antipersonnel and anti-vehicle, runway- cratering, and active submunitions (TGSMs) to engage armoured vehicles. Russian Army units will also have additional payloads, reported to include fuel-air explosive (FAE), electro-magnetic pulse (EMP), and "specialised penetration" warheads.(102)
The maximum payload is 480kg, and the cluster bomb load reportedly is 54 submunitions.(103) Its self-homing guidance system makes it an attractive export item, as the user need not necessarily rely on satellite guidance which can be cut-off or jammed,(104) but its reliability in heavy cloud cover has been questioned.(105) Twenty two countries have ballistic missiles, and seven construct them. China and North Korea are the major exporters, and their systems are basically upgrades of Scud technology. Analysts predict the Iskander-E (the "E" stands for "export") will be an attractive medium range missile on the international arms market.(106) "
Source: http://www.mcc.org/clusterbomb/report/chapter2.htm
So what do u think guys about the prospects of such a wepon combined with top attack munition MOTIV-3M.
1. I would like to know how they are bussing them and particularly if it effects terminal energy as a function of valid defensive intercept. We have been intercepting Honest John and Lance with Patriot since PAC-2 days back in the late 80s. But those were Mach 1.5-2 threats on fairly long, shallow-graze parabolas. Dumping chemicals, FAE precursors or submunitions intended to 'stabilize' to a wobblearm search pattern will require some kind of advanced braking systems, especially from the longer stated ranges.
2. It would seem important to know the reload time and/or battery size of the user units since this would largely determine the saturation and reservice factors vs. any likely threat Air or Counterballistic response.
3. BMC2 countermeasures may also be an increasingly important as a man sitting in a spider hole reporting 'roadway activity' (i.e. the reverse of the SpecOps mission in 1991) as U.S. 2nd Cav motors on by may be able to act as a networking JSTARS but ONLY if we don't interrupt his cell or mobile phone technology. This suggests an electronically more capable force than the present 'Shortstop garage doors and mortar fuzes' symphony of white noise. Of course, if the threat is using something like RADAC, then you may well be SB&T'd but that will drive round costs waaaay up. If you are using GPS/GLONASS/Gallileo to compliment a startracker then you are also going to have midcourse vulnerability. While something like a Microwave 'crossed arc' RFCG tipover system (i.e. modern day Hawaii) is utterly vulnerable and probably not accurate enough to engage moving targets with.
4. At some point we WILL need to go to on-vehicle CIWS (SLID) to engage TGSMs but unless you bus high or use something like a LOCAAS hunter which can come across a lower horizon, it would seem that you would get better cost-performance using high yield unitaries, if you can keep the VT fuzing safe. In any case, it would seem that either hugging your enemies cities or running in MUCH smaller Team groups would be the wisest choice. The Marines replicated the Khafji scenario on a 'max penetration depth' basis and generally found that, provided they kept their unit levels /small/ they could run farther against an active (Artillery and Rotary Wing plus 2 Fixed Wing attacks) defense with fewer total casualties if they simply accepted individual attrition and simply compressed the threat for TIME on sortie regeneration and new targeting allocations. Of course if you operating out of a single MSR/Depot Staging area base of logistics you may well find that you pretty well lemmings-through-a-funnel regardless. At which point, you have to start thinking about V-22 or C-130H/J fast fuelers and LAPES replenishment to provide leap-forward resupply from beyond the ballistic radius at which the missiles could threaten conventional (helo) vertrep.
6. MEADS as a mobile (VLS generic 'Netfire') system capable of launching JLENS cued AMRAAM or Aster becomes much more important as an ADV companion to mobile groups since the ability to keep even a 16 cell ERINT system in play over a 280km coverage lane may be difficult for all but the most dedicated of Airmobile CH-47 lift teams. OTOH, if you start to high-loft these suckers, that is the time I want to start looking at ABL-on-F-35 option. Or better yet, a UCAV. Certainly, I think it spells the end of pictures of AH-64 sitting on massed hardstands because 'that's what they need to operate in the Desert with'.
7. Depending on total threat range footprint, wheeled-ATACMS-II may make a come back but my personal bet is going to be on a permanent station watch of RQ-4 or perhaps MQ-9 with FRSW equivalent "Mine's faster'n'farther than yours!" in combination with MP-RTIP radar coverage. Easier to coordinate shooters with eyeballs and less lump-sum on the vehicle train.
Particularly in light of the bad memories that SCUDbat hunting in the NW->SW corridor of Iraq caused during 1991. And the general uncertainty over the controlled suppression of any residual Iraqi drone-air or ballistic delivered WMD options, even in 2003. It would seem that a continual coverage attempt to kill the TELs on launch is better handled by an HAEUAV type platform. VLS held ARRMD is also an option if the USN is the primary Theater Wide/CEC controling agency. Raptor-TALON boosted KKVs for the weapons may also be possible if the salvolaunch densities are not too bad.
KP
2. It would seem important to know the reload time and/or battery size of the user units since this would largely determine the saturation and reservice factors vs. any likely threat Air or Counterballistic response.
3. BMC2 countermeasures may also be an increasingly important as a man sitting in a spider hole reporting 'roadway activity' (i.e. the reverse of the SpecOps mission in 1991) as U.S. 2nd Cav motors on by may be able to act as a networking JSTARS but ONLY if we don't interrupt his cell or mobile phone technology. This suggests an electronically more capable force than the present 'Shortstop garage doors and mortar fuzes' symphony of white noise. Of course, if the threat is using something like RADAC, then you may well be SB&T'd but that will drive round costs waaaay up. If you are using GPS/GLONASS/Gallileo to compliment a startracker then you are also going to have midcourse vulnerability. While something like a Microwave 'crossed arc' RFCG tipover system (i.e. modern day Hawaii) is utterly vulnerable and probably not accurate enough to engage moving targets with.
4. At some point we WILL need to go to on-vehicle CIWS (SLID) to engage TGSMs but unless you bus high or use something like a LOCAAS hunter which can come across a lower horizon, it would seem that you would get better cost-performance using high yield unitaries, if you can keep the VT fuzing safe. In any case, it would seem that either hugging your enemies cities or running in MUCH smaller Team groups would be the wisest choice. The Marines replicated the Khafji scenario on a 'max penetration depth' basis and generally found that, provided they kept their unit levels /small/ they could run farther against an active (Artillery and Rotary Wing plus 2 Fixed Wing attacks) defense with fewer total casualties if they simply accepted individual attrition and simply compressed the threat for TIME on sortie regeneration and new targeting allocations. Of course if you operating out of a single MSR/Depot Staging area base of logistics you may well find that you pretty well lemmings-through-a-funnel regardless. At which point, you have to start thinking about V-22 or C-130H/J fast fuelers and LAPES replenishment to provide leap-forward resupply from beyond the ballistic radius at which the missiles could threaten conventional (helo) vertrep.
6. MEADS as a mobile (VLS generic 'Netfire') system capable of launching JLENS cued AMRAAM or Aster becomes much more important as an ADV companion to mobile groups since the ability to keep even a 16 cell ERINT system in play over a 280km coverage lane may be difficult for all but the most dedicated of Airmobile CH-47 lift teams. OTOH, if you start to high-loft these suckers, that is the time I want to start looking at ABL-on-F-35 option. Or better yet, a UCAV. Certainly, I think it spells the end of pictures of AH-64 sitting on massed hardstands because 'that's what they need to operate in the Desert with'.
7. Depending on total threat range footprint, wheeled-ATACMS-II may make a come back but my personal bet is going to be on a permanent station watch of RQ-4 or perhaps MQ-9 with FRSW equivalent "Mine's faster'n'farther than yours!" in combination with MP-RTIP radar coverage. Easier to coordinate shooters with eyeballs and less lump-sum on the vehicle train.
Particularly in light of the bad memories that SCUDbat hunting in the NW->SW corridor of Iraq caused during 1991. And the general uncertainty over the controlled suppression of any residual Iraqi drone-air or ballistic delivered WMD options, even in 2003. It would seem that a continual coverage attempt to kill the TELs on launch is better handled by an HAEUAV type platform. VLS held ARRMD is also an option if the USN is the primary Theater Wide/CEC controling agency. Raptor-TALON boosted KKVs for the weapons may also be possible if the salvolaunch densities are not too bad.
KP
We7det_el_qetal
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #6
Thx Kurt for pointing out so many areas of research that was the most detailed and informed response i've had on any military forum
We7det_el_qetal
New Member
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #7
I think such attacks should employ at least 10 TELs which amounts to about 20 missiles with scuds and frog-7 giving decoy targets,
regarding point 2, i think that's why china is using fiber links to try to make it's comms jam proof.
I have to agree with u on point 4, units have to disperse in order to minimize the effect of such cluster weapons, but that ofcourse would still leave them vulnrable to artillery guided munitions like Krasnopol-M or ambushes where the units main firepower have been divided among smaller units.
but i think that MEADS and JLENS only tackle the cruise problem not the ballistic problem since Iskander-E is a ballistic missile.
I think the UAV option works both ways, it could provide information regarding the movments of armoured columns just like it could regarding TELs
regarding point 2, i think that's why china is using fiber links to try to make it's comms jam proof.
I have to agree with u on point 4, units have to disperse in order to minimize the effect of such cluster weapons, but that ofcourse would still leave them vulnrable to artillery guided munitions like Krasnopol-M or ambushes where the units main firepower have been divided among smaller units.
but i think that MEADS and JLENS only tackle the cruise problem not the ballistic problem since Iskander-E is a ballistic missile.
I think the UAV option works both ways, it could provide information regarding the movments of armoured columns just like it could regarding TELs