Rearming SLBM or ICBM with conventional warheads
- Thread starter brian00
- Start date
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Depends on accuracy. i know MIRV warheads are accurate enough to hit a specific base, but without a nuke on board your probably just gonna leave a big crater in the gardens next to the target you wanted to take out. Hiting an individual building is another level of accuracy. You could equip them with a GPS guidence system like the JDAM's but they come in mighty fast. Also their not stealth, an your target would probably see them coming. And theres annother problem. How would third parties, lets say russia or china (if their not your targets) know that you're only fireing conventional warheads? the only time they'de know for sure is after the warhead impacts. Someone might think your initiating a pre emptive nuclear strike and retaliate. if you could make them accurate enough, it would give you a world wide precision strike capability that could reach the target 40 minuts after you launched. Howerver ICBM's are a cornerstone of nuclear deterrant, and launching one with conventional warheads at say Terahn could have massive consequences. I think its just to dangerous.
The americans and the russians have an accord in place which covers this. Unfort, china is not interested in establishing a hotline with the US, so the risks go up.Ozzy Blizzard said:
We have basing modes that are obviously different as well as hotlines. The ballistic trajectories are different. The delivery vehicles will not be totally ballistic throughout the entire flight. No nation has the ability engage the missiles or warheads except maybe the USA in the near future even if they could detect them during the brief 5 to 30 minute flight. As to accuracy, try sub 10 meter worse case with 3 meters being a realistic design goal.Ozzy Blizzard said:
Also its not likely that anyone is going to launch a "just in case" launch on warning in real life for a few imbounds that are obviously on "different" trajectories. Especially when the retaliation could be so disproportionate.
Take a look at CAV, FALCON and Prompt Global Strike to get an idea of some of whats coming. This capability is really going to push the development of persistant ISR of all types. Things like TELs, Mobile SAMs, Critical RED ISR, Bunkers, massed concentrations of armor or logistics vehicles, aircraft on the ground and infrastructure, ships/subs in port and all manner of mobile and fixed targets will be at risk. Such a weapon would really make counter measures difficult after confirmation of detection. At 8 to 10 million a pop such weapons will be used most likely as first day of war weapons and also on contigency basis for the NCA.
Last edited:
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Mirved Up!
Other than definite problems with ICBM detecting nations, just think of the strike capbility of (I know these are decommed for good) but think of the 50 peacekeepers with 10 coventional warheads on each 500 warheads with the ability to strike any target in the world within 30 mins or so, even the soon to be retired 50 minutemen 3 can hold four warheads each.
Other than definite problems with ICBM detecting nations, just think of the strike capbility of (I know these are decommed for good) but think of the 50 peacekeepers with 10 coventional warheads on each 500 warheads with the ability to strike any target in the world within 30 mins or so, even the soon to be retired 50 minutemen 3 can hold four warheads each.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
yeah , the yanks could allmost decommision the B2's, the old minutmen are allmost worthless anyway so it would save some cash (although the B2's do come back) and it would be allmost impossible to deffend agains for most nations. the loss of 30 or 40 C&C instalations within ahlf an hour of launch would defenately make a bad day.
robsta83 said:
When people say ICBM detecting nations, I wonder if that concept is fully understood. The B in ICBM stands for ballistic. Just like a rock thrown from your hand. Assuming you have to capability to detect an object in an unannounced orbit, not many nations can, then you know two things almost immediately. Where it came from and where its going. If the lauch site is somewhere in the Mid USA then get scared. If its out of California or Florida and the point of impact is some hole in the wall dictatorship nation. Then there is little chance that someone is going to get scare and fire off a just in case nuclear response only to recieve a completely disproportionate US nuclear response. Especially if the inbounds are only a couple dozen or less and not heading for Russian missile silos.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
So if 50 MIRV's were detected in their re entry phase all coming down, (from the north east) over bajing people wouldn't be reaching for little red buttons? I dont think the Chinese would risk their ability to retaliate on the possability of conventionally armed warheads. Your right probably the Russians would be the only ones to detect the launch (i'm not sure if the're sat's are even operational any more?). So the risk might be negligible if your going to launch at a non nuclear power. but i wouldn't be aiming those conventionally armed ICBM's ad Russia or China any time soon.DarthAmerica said:
RubiconNZ
The Wanderer
Nations
I did mean Russia and China, an other than UK and the French the former are the ones that can trigger the issues, everyone has heard of the case of mistaken identity that the russian made a few years back over a weather ballon...
I know that Russia has some form of detection system in one state of repair or another, and China afaik is just guess work as they do have semi solid space program.
I did mean Russia and China, an other than UK and the French the former are the ones that can trigger the issues, everyone has heard of the case of mistaken identity that the russian made a few years back over a weather ballon...
I know that Russia has some form of detection system in one state of repair or another, and China afaik is just guess work as they do have semi solid space program.
Last edited:
Hell no. For what? To trade 5 RV's that might reliably make it to the USA and survive the ABM systems for the 500 to 1000+ it will take in return? The PRC is not suicidal.Ozzy Blizzard said:
Last edited:
Nah B-2's are far more versitile as delivery platforms and preferable in the majority of situations. Especially if the target isnt time sensitive. Also B-2 strike could be a lot less expensive unless you lose the Bomber itself.Ozzy Blizzard said:
Problem is, those reasons arent based on any of the realities. Including the fact that the DoD is funding the R&D and deployment of 96 conventional warheads and the FALCON program.Big-E said:
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
Mate if 50 plus MIRV's were detected over their eastern seaboard they'ed probably think it was all over anyway. Do you think the Yankns and the Russians are the only ones that have nukes as an effective deturrent? By that thinking you could literaly nuke Bajing, as long as the Russians were on your side, and nobody would raise a finger for fear of massive retaliation. 30 million dead U.S. citizens would be an attractive optoin for some hard ass PROC commander who figure he's allready under nuclear attack. Is it really worth those kind of risks for a strike capability a B2 can do anyway???DarthAmerica said:
P.S. I dont know anything about the FALCON program but is it even passed the theoretical stage yet? could you give me a link so i could read up on it?
I think there is the possibility of a serious misunderstanding of this concept. Unless the RVs are being shot at the Russians or Chinese. They would probably be warned just prior to the attack. Even if they werent, you can tell were a ballistic projectile is going almost as soon as you could detect it. Then there are time critical targets. Like Bin Laden, Iranian Leader or a mobile WMD TEL. B-2's can take hours or days to respond to that. In OIF we had assets literally in theater and almost overhead that could not strike Saddam in time to prevent the invasion. With a CICBM/CIRSLBM that is less of an issue. As in problem solved within 5 to 30 minutes. Not many nations have the ISR means to react that fast. Even their OPSEC would be hard pressed to keep up with a 5 to 30 minute safety margin. Time your response to this post including the time it takes to read this. In that time you could have a MARV hitting 3 to 10 meters from where you are sitting now. Even a manned/unmanned platform that could fly hypersonic speeds would be hard pressed to offer that capability for less than $10million a shot. Then there are the often neglected but extremely important ISR payload possibilities. Be real convienient if your diplomatic corps about to enter the UNSC could have evidence in hand the moment the OPSEC window opens or within 5 to 30 minute of that opening.Ozzy Blizzard said:Mate if 50 plus MIRV's were detected over their eastern seaboard they'ed probably think it was all over anyway. Do you think the Yankns and the Russians are the only ones that have nukes as an effective deturrent? By that thinking you could literaly nuke Bajing, as long as the Russians were on your side, and nobody would raise a finger for fear of massive retaliation. 30 million dead U.S. citizens would be an attractive optoin for some hard ass PROC commander who figure he's allready under nuclear attack. Is it really worth those kind of risks for a strike capability a B2 can do anyway???
P.S. I dont know anything about the FALCON program but is it even passed the theoretical stage yet? could you give me a link so i could read up on it?
B-2s can do a lot. But there are significant capabilities that a CICBM could offer then are not easily or cheaply duplicated.
P.S. RE: FALCON. Google "FALCON" "DARPA" and "CAV" and you will get an idea of whats coming.
Last edited:
decision/delivery compression cycles have changed dramatically though.DarthAmerica said:
if you look at the decision/delivery compression cycles for assets in strike range for the US.
- 1991 - approx 4 hrs
- 2003 - approx 30 mins
Thats a pretty good turn around.
Ozzy Blizzard
New Member
So it would be designed for individual presission time sencitive targets? Not large scale pre emptive strikes? i see your point, 500kg of HE with 3 meter accuracy within half an hour of the desision being made, it is an awesome capability thats all but unstoppable. i just wouldn't use it in a (verry unlikely) large scale conflict with Russia/China. :eek
in the case of the Russians it was a time sensitive strike as they were unsure as to when the target intended driving off. they couldn't get air assets there in time, so they used the Toschka.Ozzy Blizzard said:
They targeted the last known mobile phone transmission and scored a positive result.
It must take the world record for the biggest HARM rocket used - or the biggest anti-materiele weapon used .... (it also cleaned up the Gaz that he was sitting in apparently)
That's an awesome turn around. But that assumes the target is in an area you are already covering. Sometimes threats appear in the darndest places. It also assumes relatively unhardened target. Over the last 20 years there has been a demonstrated capability gap in regard to time critical targets. Well unless you would rather us use my prefered ICBM payload. CICBM's give the NCA real deterence and real options should deterence fail.gf0012-aust said:decision/delivery compression cycles have changed dramatically though.
if you look at the decision/delivery compression cycles for assets in strike range for the US.
as another example. the Russians slotted a Chechyan rebel leader using a Toshka BR within 10 minutes of the call.
- 1991 - approx 4 hrs
- 2003 - approx 30 mins
Thats a pretty good turn around.
I'm not sure I'd want to get slapped on the head with a Toschka battlefield rocket. It would turn an Abrams into a 70 ton pile of scrap metal pretty easily.DarthAmerica said:
the USAF has successfully slapped a moving road speed target with JDAMs at approx 50 miles last year - so the capability to guide a battlefield rocket onto a target in real time is just as do-able - assuming that they're not engaged in erratic evasive manouvres.