Icbms, Etc

[B777LR]

PR fluff pieces like Discovery Channel shows, while entertaining, are usually always lacking.

I know. TV shows like that F.eks tell that F-15s fly fast and fire deadly missiles  

[van883]

Before people get so critical about how others write-remember that English is not the first or second language of every contributor to this forum...

Van

[ysi_maniac]

Contribution from an humble Spaniard:

Oxford's dictionary defines grenade as "small bomb that can be thrown by hand or fired from a gun"
 

[Shasper]

Granted thats what grenade means, however the first mental image a person thinks of when you say "grenade" is John Wayne or GI Joe lobbing a pinapple into enemy lines.

Shas B)

[gengriz]

Back to the original thrust of this thread:  GPS & ICBMs.  I studied this in detail during the 1980s for my first degree.

Use of GPS to enhance ICBM warhead accuracy is not a WHIF - the system now known as GPS was originally developed in the late 1970s/early 80s as an integral part of the US (& UK) Trident & US MX "Peacekeeper" ICBM systems for exactly this purpose (you didnt really think the US Military spent that much money just so that hikers & yotties could find their way home?).

The GPS orbital constellation provided a mid course positioning update to the warhead, that allowed a theoretical CEP of about 2M (6ft).  This is sufficient to "bust" any known land based bunker hardening technology then, now and anticipated.  Realisation of this fact was the major driver for the frantic efforts to find a mobile launch solution for MX,  - static launch silos like Minuteman just couldnt achieve the first strike survivability required to be a credible response system.  

The Soviets reached the same conclusion and developed effective dispersable tracked land mobile launchers for their MX equivalent, hiding out in the Ural mountains, whilst the US pondered massive submarine crawlers on the bottom of the Great Lakes (my favourite - the US has a massive resource of deep inland waterways, all free from enemy SSNs), ISO containers on anonymous ships, trucks and trains, railway based launchers (and decoys) shunted around the US rail network, articulated trucks dispersing swiftly round 400m diameter tracks and (the cheapest and possibly best) plain; simply pushing them (with a parachute to achieve correct launch orientation) out of the back of dumb aircraft (such as the C-130 and C141/C5). These varied ideas really do provide some excellent WHIF potential; if you can find them, successive editions of Aviation Week from the early 1980s cover all of the arguments and proposals, providing an excellent WHIF reference.  Force protection & security issues killed most of the proposals, but megaton MIRV MX armed C-130s were a real possibility - as were the bottom crawlers (albeit high technical risk) and high speed dispersal areas.

In the end, under conflicting budgetary and political pressure from Congress, the Senate, world opinion, the Soviets (SALT treaty obligations) and the USAF, Mr Reagan dropped all pretense that MX could survive a first strike and went instead for a compromise that enabled MX technology to be developed but not effectively fielded - cheap converted minutman silos (Grand Forks, Dakota, I believe) - making MX essentially a dubious first strike only weapon, with the submarine based Trident (using essentially the same warhead technology) system the only realistic retaliation weapon in the US arsenal.

The key CEP figures of the day were 2m (busts everything) and 200m (may not prevent a retaliatory launch - difficult to believe, but apparently true).  Encrypted military GPS achieved reliable 2m accuracy (in theory).  To prevent enemies using the system against the US (or its allies?), a system entitled Selective Availability (SA) was introduced - this placed a random (unpredictable) 200m "wobble" of inaccuracy on publicly available GPS systems.  Unfortunately, civil GPS manufacturers quickly realised that a reference signal from a geographically fixed GPS station could be sent near real-time to the receiver to correct the wobble - perhaps not fast enough for ICBM guidance, but nevertheless making SA look rather silly.   SA was finally switched off during the first Gulf War (to allow coalition ground based troops to use cheap hand held receivers) and has never fully re-emerged, although the US govt retains the right to do so without warning and explicity refuses to guarantee accuracy (all you trusting GPS owners - its in your licensing documentation somewhere).

Of course, the Soviets weren't just satisfied with survivability through mobile launchers - they wanted MX & Trident style first strike effectiveness too, and thus was born their planned, but never (yet) fully achieved GPS equivalent - the GLONASS system, with similar CEP targets as GPS.

[Shasper]

Technology has come a long way from then, last I heard the CEP was in the 1-3ft range (and thats what we're allowed to know, no telling what it really is).

While a accurate GPS guided MIRV could put a nuke thru the premeirs window in the kremlin, lobbing a equivelent conventional or the Gods Rods is a whole nother ball game in the political areana. While the Tech is there, the political aspect isnt. Reason why I think the ICBM/SLBMs should stick w/lobbing nukes if the *CRAP* really hits the fan (God I hope not), while we fire TLAMs, Calcms, SDBs and J-series shiz at Uncle Musaf/Ho/Ben.



Shas B)

[B777LR]

Granted thats what grenade means, however the first mental image a person thinks of when you say "grenade" is John Wayne or GI Joe lobbing a pinapple into enemy lines.

Unless of course, your first mentalimage is of a bofors cannon  

[Jschmus]

I still like the idea of the satellite-launched Kinetic Kill Vehicle.

[Shasper]

Problem, that would violate the no weapons in space treaty (whatever the cool name for it is?)

Shas B)

[Gervasius]

Shas, I think only WMDs are forbidden in space.

Marko

[blue520]

It is the "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies".

The section about WMDs in space is covered by article VI.

"Article VI states Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the Moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited."

So no undertaking manuvers with experimental 50 foot nuke wielding battlemechs on the Moon, but Kinetic Kill Vehicles and the like are ok.

David.

[Shasper]

Then what would define "Mass Destruction"? While one rod could take out a bumker or similar target, if one where to release a good number of these things, then a good part of a civilized area would be eliminated.

Shas B)

[blue520]

With KKVs it seems to be a gray area and rather political in nature, it may be one of the reasons that such a weapon system has not been developed.  Also it could be a reason that the idea of tungsten rod fitted ICBM/SLBMs continues to float around, as it gets past the "in orbit" (and other) issues.

David