Pentagon seeks quick hit missile

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

Originally posted by notyoueither
SLBMs don't have to go into orbit.

Don't have to, no. Fighters don't have to use aams in air combat either, but it's a heck of a lot more effective.

They don't go truely orbital, or they wouldn't have ranges measured in fractions of the Earth's circumference.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove


Trident missles are MIRVed. I believe they launch about a dozen warheads, but I think that the nuclear warheads are not that high power as far as nules go. I believe that they're less than 1 megaton. My guess is that in order for these missles to be able to launch that many warheads the individual warheads can't be very heavy. We don't know if the Trident missles armed with conventional warheads will be MIRVed or not. Accuracy of the MIRVed warheads somehwere in the order of 100 yards I believe. If you're using a nuke that's fine, but if you're using a 500 lb conventional warhead that's not good enough. Of course, if the conventionally armed missle doesn't use MIRVed warheads the bomb would be much larger and could even use Geosats to make the aim even better. OTOH a dozen smaller MIRVed conventional warheads targetted to detonate within a 100 yard circle might be even more effective.

Could this have something to do with the 700 ton bunker buster bomb recently tested? I doubt that Trident missles have a 700 ton lift capacity.

10 and are 1 meg each

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Sikander


IIRC they are no longer MIRVed, after our agreements with the Russians to do away with MIRVed missles in order to better verify our arms limitation treaties at the end of the cold war.

Nuclear warheads are heavy, while conventional high explosives are not so heavy. So in terms of weight they should be able to equip these with a decent warhead. Hooked up with satellite guidance these should be able to hit within 15 meters or so of their target almost anywhere on the globe.

The Navy is still MIRVed to the best of my knowledge. Just the Air Force misslies are now either completed or soon will be completer to single warheads.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Vince278

Why am i not surprised the Russians have missiles with that name.

Actually, Satan is the NATO designation of Russian SS-18 ICBM. For Russian missiles they also have such pearls as "sunburn", "shipwreck" and IIRC "hell's kitchen".
And it's me who is not surprised YOU have such names for our missiles.

Wuss.

Says who? Conventional payload for ICBMs is your idea.

[Serb]

Originally posted by Sikander


IIRC they are no longer MIRVed, after our agreements with the Russians to do away with MIRVed missles in order to better verify our arms limitation treaties at the end of the cold war.

AFAIK, according to the latest treaty we signed, both sides are limited to 1700-2000 nuclear warheads. I may be wrong, but that agreement do not specify the means of delivery of those warheads. So, MIRVs are still in play.

Nuclear warheads are heavy, while conventional high explosives are not so heavy. So in terms of weight they should be able to equip these with a decent warhead. Hooked up with satellite guidance these should be able to hit within 15 meters or so of their target almost anywhere on the globe.

You should actually read the article. It says that conventional Trident warheads will not be explosives, but just a metal slugs and rods and will destroy things due to its kinetic power, not explosive (so, I believe they will be God damn heavy).

From post one of this thread:
"Under the Pentagon plan, each Trident submarine would carry two of the non-nuclear-armed Trident II missiles along with 22 nuclear-armed Trident missiles. Each of the non-nuclear missiles would carry four warheads.
Two types of warheads would be developed. One type would be a metal slug that would land with such tremendous force it could smash a building. The other type of warhead would disperse tungsten rods to destroy vehicles and less well-protected targets over a broader area. "

[Vince278]

Dangerous. If someone fires non-nuclear missiles how will the target know they are non-nuclear and not respond with a nuclear counter strike?

[germanos]

Originally posted by Vince278
Dangerous. If someone fires non-nuclear missiles how will the target know they are non-nuclear and not respond with a nuclear counter strike?

nm

[Pekka]

Leading by example?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Vince278
Dangerous. If someone fires non-nuclear missiles how will the target know they are non-nuclear and not respond with a nuclear counter strike?

The 'targets' don't matter. Russia, who would be very unlikely to be the target of a missile unless that missile had about 1000 friends along for the ride, and who have the capability to detect the launch, does. Maybe China sometime soon.

What does Putin do when a single SLBM launches from the southern parts of the Indian Ocean, he has been warned that one would be launched, and all else is silent?

I think he rolls over and goes back to sleep after thinking that the Russian Navy just gained an edge by pinpointing a Yankee boomer.

[Serb]

You are wrong NYE,
whenever Russia or USA launch its ICBM for training purposes the other side is always warned about the incoming launch and the strategic forces of that side (I have no idea how they call in US a branch of military, which is responsible for nuclear strikes) are always put on higher alert than usual.
You have to understand that even a single ICBM it's a huge threat, which should be faced accordingly. Even a sinle ICBM could destroy such city as Moscow or Washington D.C. and thus can disrupt the chain of command at least for some time. And in nuclear warfare even seconds mean a lot.

[notyoueither]

That isn't at odds with what I said. Of course the Yanks would tell Ivan that an SLBM was launching. Of course Ivan would step up alertness... and then they would see a single SLBM, perhaps out of range of anything in Russia... and nothing else.

That's when Putin rolls over and goes back to sleep.

It is likely that no one else would have any clue that anything happened, until the target of the missile got hit.

[Dr Strangelove]

Maybe what I want to know is the payload weight of a Trident II.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Serb
(I have no idea how they call in US a branch of military, which is responsible for nuclear strikes)

The Air Force is generally in charge of nuclear strikes. If launched from a ship or sub the Navy is in charge.

[Serb]

What about silos?

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Serb
What about silos?

Our strategic rocket forces are generally Air Force (my service before retirement )