Icbms, Etc

[Maverick]

Thinking again whilst doodling (I know, dangerous and disturbing).

With the current guidance packages like GPS, could such a system be fitted to a MIRV to decrease it's CEP (Circular Error Probability - i think).  Tighter group means a smaller warhead.

Now for a second thought, I don't know if this has already been covered, but could such a guided MIRV have a conventional penetrator warhead for precision strikes on Bunkers & C3 facilites for instance?

Over to the tech-minded out there.

Mav

[Scooterman]

Just a few thoughts on your thoughts.  

Even a small tac nuke has a couple miles of blast radius so does it REALLY need to be CEPed down to a few 100 feet?  C'mon how close do you need to be if dropping instant sunshine?  

However a conventional MIRV warhead can be a real deterrant.  No need for ships or aircraft to get within a 100 miles or so of a target.  Launch from US soil to slap a bad guy in the face-that's cool.  BUT at what price?  I think getting an aircraft/ship/sub into the general area to launch a Tomahawk or CALCM would be cheaper than shooting off a ICBM based MOAB.

[Shasper]

But here's the problem, how does the "other" guys (Russia, China, etc) know that it's a conventional MIRV instead of a nuke? What if we said it's a conventional, but someone goofed & now a nuke is headed downtown? There's just too much guessing and distrust to use something like the ICBM/SLBM as a conventional delievery system. The idea of a  "Rods from God" or other conventional-type ICBM/SLBM is novel, but I dont think it'll overcome the MAD past.

(BTW, Didnt we discuss this topic a month or so back?)

Shas B)

[Gervasius]

Even a small tac nuke has a couple miles of blast radius so does it REALLY need to be CEPed down to a few 100 feet?  C'mon how close do you need to be if dropping instant sunshine?

Depends on a target you are trying to kill. Missile silo, bunker o something like that is a b!tch to take out, you need a groundburst directly on a target to burn it from the surface. Even for cities, you need some accuracy - point is, you do not destroy cities as such, you destroy political/economical/communications targets that are in cities.

Maverick:

With the current guidance packages like GPS, could such a system be fitted to a MIRV to decrease it's CEP (Circular Error Probability - i think). Tighter group means a smaller warhead.

MIRVs are relatively inaccurate, single-warhead ICBMs are far more accurate.

[Maverick]

Thanks for the input guys, thought it sounded silly & was pretty sure we'd spoken of it b4, but inquiring minds & all that..  Must have been when I was offline for that while.

Mav

[Mossie]

Depends on a target you are trying to kill. Missile silo, bunker o something like that is a b!tch to take out, you need a groundburst directly on a target to burn it from the surface. Even for cities, you need some accuracy - point is, you do not destroy cities as such, you destroy political/economical/communications targets that are in cities.

I remember a civilian bunker being built somwhere locally as a kid in the eighties, the relatively un-reinforced as opposed to the rest of it.  When asked why, they said that the walls would take the brunt & it was designed to take anything but a direct hit, even if the nuke hit fairly close (no idea what the distance was).  If a nuke fell right on top, there was virtually nothing that could protect it.

[Gervasius]

I remember a civilian bunker being built somwhere locally as a kid in the eighties, the relatively un-reinforced as opposed to the rest of it.  When asked why, they said that the walls would take the brunt & it was designed to take anything but a direct hit, even if the nuke hit fairly close (no idea what the distance was).  If a nuke fell right on top, there was virtually nothing that could protect it.

Definitely. I remember, there was a nice communication tower some kilometers from my house. As former Yugoslavia was officialy neutral, we would get hit by both, NATO and WarPact instant sunshine strikes. Good times.

Marko

[anthonyp]

(BTW, Didnt we discuss this topic a month or so back?)

Shas B)

Yeah, about two months ago, when I thought the Pentagon had given up on it, then the next day, an article appeared on DefenseNews.com about those morons still pushing conventional Tridents on a mixed nuclear/conventional Ohio class boat.

Conventional ICBM's/SLBM's are still terrible ideas, from every standpoint except strategic and tactical warfare.  I understand the thinking behind conventional MIRV's, but the politics behind it (both domestic and abroad) would make the deployment of such a system, let alone it's usage, incredibly ugly and a potential world ender.  At least the Congresscriters in charge of appropriations have stated that the Pentagon needs to come up with some other plan besides conventional ballistic missiles if they ever want to see funding for a rapid attack weapons system.

As for MIRV's, the CEP's on the latter ICBM's and SLBM's were almost negligible, considering what the warhead was supposed to do, and even with hardened targets like silos and C&C facilities, a warhead just needed to get close enough and airburst (NORAD, for example, became vulnerable to large warheads with modern CEP's in the late 70's/early 80's).

[B777LR]

With the latest artillery systems, guided ICBMs are made useless. Russia has the MSTA-S that fires a laser guided projectile over 20 km.

Hte US army is developing a GPS guided grenade that will only hit withing 20 meters of the target (thus no good against tanks,as the MSTA is), however, this grenade apparently costs more than 4x as much as the russian grenades...

Oto Millara makes guided naval artillery.

[GTX]

Russia has the MSTA-S that fires a laser guided projectile over 20 km.

Only 20 km - that's pathetic!  Most modern SPGs can often hit 40km or more.

Regards,

Greg

[Shasper]

Guided Artillery still need to deployed to the combat theatre, thus being susceptible to targeting by the oppositions forces.

ICBM/SLBMs on the other hand are able to "reach out & touch some one" without being touched themselves (under normal circumstances). Thats their only advantage, everything else has them beat.


Shas B)

[anthonyp]

Hte US army is developing a GPS guided grenade that will only hit withing 20 meters of the target (thus no good against tanks,as the MSTA is), however, this grenade apparently costs more than 4x as much as the russian grenades...

Where do you get this stuff from?!  A grenade is something a soldier hefts, like a baseball!  You don't GPS something that is a spur of the moment attack method.

What you're probably referring to is a submunition for the US Army ATACMS.  The missile is the US Army's current short range tactical ballistic missile (roughly ranged 85-185 miles), fired out of an MLRS carrier.  There is a GPS guided submunition for that system.  The submunition is not something a soldier would use.

Like I said with conventional ICBM's and SLBM's, I understand the logic behind them, just don't agree with making them a reality.  They're quick strike systems, with huge negatives attached to them, and there's other equally effective (and non-doomsday heralding) systems available or that could be developed.

[B777LR]

Hte US army is developing a GPS guided grenade that will only hit withing 20 meters of the target (thus no good against tanks,as the MSTA is), however, this grenade apparently costs more than 4x as much as the russian grenades...

Where do you get this stuff from?!  A grenade is something a soldier hefts, like a baseball!  You don't GPS something that is a spur of the moment attack method.

Lol, i was reffering to what a cannon fires. Also known in this part of the world as a grenade.

What you're probably referring to is a submunition for the US Army ATACMS. The missile is the US Army's current short range tactical ballistic missile (roughly ranged 85-185 miles), fired out of an MLRS carrier. There is a GPS guided submunition for that system. The submunition is not something a soldier would use.

Nope, it a "shell" (you apparently dont know aknowledge grenade) with little fins that will guide it with the help of GPS

Where do you get this stuff from?!

Weapons of the future, a series of programs about the next generation of weapons, thats just been showed for the first time on discovery channel (in denmark at least)


Edit: its the XM982 Excalibur guided munition project

[B777LR]

Here is a chinese guided shell:
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/artillery/...ser_guided3.asp

[anthonyp]

Nope, it a "shell" (you apparently dont know aknowledge grenade) with little fins that will guide it with the help of GPS

Grenade and shell are two different things.  You typed "GPS guided grenade," which made absolutely no sense.  Guided submunition is about the closest I could come up with what you were trying to say.

And I know a great deal more on the Excalibur than what is allowed to be shown on the Discovery Channel, any website, or typed here for that matter.  PR fluff pieces like Discovery Channel shows, while entertaining, are usually always lacking.