| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| Conventional ICBMs |
| 2006-02-18 |
| Someone is finally putting conventional warheads on an ICBM. The U.S. Navy is moving forward on this, after decades of it being talked about in several countries. This is part of a new strategy by the United States to be able to respond within hours to a threat, or opportunity, anywhere on the planet. The navy is taking the three ton warhead of the Trident D-5 SLBM (Sea Launched Ballistic Missile) and fitting it with non-nuclear weapons. This could be anything from a dozen or so SDBs (250 pound GPS guided smart bombs), to a single bunker busting weapon. One major design obstacle is the high re-entry speed of the Trident warhead (over 20,000 kilometers an hour). For sub-munitions (like the SDB), you have to get them slowed down enough so their guidance systems can work. Normally, SDBs are dropped from an aircraft traveling at less than a thousand kilometers an hour. For a bunker buster type bomb, you could use the high speed to advantage (in smashing through the roof of the bunker.) In any event, this type of weapon will be expensive. Currently, Trident D-5 SLBMs cost $66 million each. This is brilliant. What was not mentioned is that these missiles are destined for the scrap heap, anyway, as they have been eliminated by treaty. However, if they are *used* before the deadline, that is not a problem. Given, of course, that we notify the other nuclear powers of a launch before the fact, so they don't collectively poop themselves. |
| Posted by:Anonymoose |
| #10 I would imagine most of the vehicle is destroyed by atmospheric heating, leaving only that portion of the missile protected by a heat shield to engage the target. |
| Posted by: 6 2006-02-18 19:55 |
| #9 CL, agreed. That's about the only application that makes sense. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2006-02-18 17:16 |
| #8 1000 yrs from now - some archeologist will wonder why Iran entombed their scientists with crappy centrifuges and radioactive material |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-02-18 16:49 |
| #7 I dunno, but something weighing as much as a dump truck and travelling at three and a half miles per second is gonna leave a welt. |
| Posted by: Dave D. 2006-02-18 16:14 |
| #6 How much kinetic energy would one of these bunker busters from on high carry? Would you even need explosives? |
| Posted by: Classical_Liberal 2006-02-18 16:05 |
| #5 Jackal, Thanks for the clarification. How many of the D5s are to be scrapped? Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2006-02-18 11:43 |
| #4 Mike: Under the treaty, the delivery vehicles must be destroyed. The INF treaty of 1987 was the same thing. We couldn't convert the Pershings and cruise missiles to conventional; they had to be crushed. Ironically, the warheads didn't need to be destroyed. |
| Posted by: Jackal 2006-02-18 10:18 |
| #3 TS8159 - Russian early warning systems are...adequate. We would almost have to give them some kind of warning, however. A Trident strike against Iran would most likely come out of the IO, and that would look an awful lot like a first strike. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2006-02-18 09:18 |
| #2 ...What is making me smile about this is that Jim Dunnigan - who runs StrategyPage - was advocating this 20+ years ago. One other thought - is it possible that under the treaty, the missiles can be retained if they don't have nuclear warheads? After all, WE play by the rules and would probably be more than willing to let Official Inspectors(TM) have a look. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2006-02-18 09:16 |
| #1 When the Russians detect a launch, how much time do their systems take before they know it is not targeted in a first strike capable profile. Will they wait? Stick to cruise missiles. |
| Posted by: Thrineper Spigum8159 2006-02-18 07:54 |