Article

2006-05-20 Caucasus/Russia/Central Asia

Russian Army Chief Warns Over Non-Nuclear ICBMs

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by DanNY 2006-05-20 00:11|| || Front Page|| [11128 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Truth be told he does have a bit of a point - its wasteful of the assets. Better to put the money into developing low orbit "rods from God" than use these things as suborbital HE bombs.

But as far as them being a threat, the ballistics would give themselves away VERY quickly if there were anything launched that could come remotely close to fitting the geometry of an attack profile against ~~Soviet~~ Russia. Not to mention is way obvious if we are launching the damend things - its woudl be onthe internet within minutes, and one of their guys has a phone he can call the "emergency" sat phone I'm sure Osama
's guys keep as a contingency, and get the intended target the hell out of the taget zone in a hurry (HE kill radius only goes so far).

Better off with a Rod from God or a Pred/G-Hawk and a Hellfire.

Posted by Oldspook 2006-05-20 00:55|| 2006-05-20 00:55|| Front Page Top

#2 OldSpook, the problem is "Rods from God" just doesn't work at least physics wise. A sub-orb launched MRBM like the ones ATK is developing DOES work and can put 5-10 tons of hurt on a target in under 15 minutes for under 1/10th the cost of a traditional ICBM (no nuke warheads, specialized super accurate guidance systems or decoy systems are really necessary). Rods from God have a couple of problems, namely you need to have an infrastructure to put the suckers up there, even with a land based re-usable launcher you gotta put em high enough up that they wont come down accidently from de-orbitting (course FALCONUS aims to put up sub-orb capable aero vehicles as well but thats another thing). Then you got the bloody rods coming down.

These rods will have both a horizontal motion relative to the earth (due to their orbit) as well as a downward motion, think of a half ballistic path. This means they will require constant course correction all the way to target and extra fuel which in turn cuts into payload. Toss in at atmospheric re-entry speeds (potential mach 30ish) you melt everything to a plasma state including tungsten and DU and you end up with phase problems and aerodynamic destabilization not even counting how the heck the telemetry problems.

Finally theres the problem that no long rod penetrator will penetrate reinforced concrete to a depth more than 4 times its own length. For the similar KE release you're better off using a couple of JDAMs or better use a variant using the "deep digger" prototypes. I'd like to see deep digger attached to some MIRVd capable tac MRBMs.

Posted by Valentine 2006-05-20 05:47|| 2006-05-20 05:47|| Front Page Top

#3 OS gives Russia way too much credit for its ability to detect and determine the couse of an ICBM launch and the intent of its launchers. If an ICBM came from an SLBM in the Indian Ocean to Tehran, I can easily imagine the Ruskies not knowing about it till halfway through its flight and then misinterpreting its flight path through errors every step of the way. Look at the KAL007 debacle. While Russia has spots of westernism that can be supported through great concentration of effort to accomplish technological feats, once on line they are operated by third worlders full of vodka.

Using ballistic missles for any purpose other than nukes bears a risk far in excess of the rewards given the other alternatives that would be available.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-05-20 07:28|| 2006-05-20 07:28|| Front Page Top

#4 Counterstrike won't happen. The Russian early warning system is so decrepit they probably won't detect the launch and problably won't detect it on radar at all or until the very end of the flight (assuming target is Iran and a sub launched missile flying a low ballistic trajectory).

Even if detected, crazy Vlad is not going to launch a strike against the US for one missile. Otherwise, every enemy would be trying to goad the Russians into launching a first strike aganst the US.

I'm against wasting a $60 million missile against a few terrorists. Spend the money on 100,000 bombs and waste their hometowns and their largest city.

Posted by ed 2006-05-20 08:07|| 2006-05-20 08:07|| Front Page Top

#5 ed its not a $60 million missile, hell even an MX Peacekeeper didn't cost that much, you're looking at theoretical costs around $2-8 million however if you got by ATK's variant. Oh and as far as the early warning radar goes, yeah not only is the Russian system decrepit but there was an article awhile back that said they would be depending on the US to notify them of any space launches or missile testing because of the state of their radars. If so I'd think Russia has bigger problems than worrying about what kind of strike options we develop.

Posted by Valentine 2006-05-20 08:51|| 2006-05-20 08:51|| Front Page Top

#6 Well, if deep penetration is not an issue, imagine using a ballistic missile that doesn't "land" as it were? That is, the missile 'itself' has an unthreatening trajectory into an ocean, but its contents, say 5,000 hardened ceramic "bowling balls", is "dumped" over a wide area land target.

In other words, it is much like a gigantic cluster munition, but one that throws 5,000 meteorites.

Perhaps a similar effect to about 100 B-52 bombers, each dropping 50 250lb iron bombs.

Posted by Anonymoose 2006-05-20 09:06|| 2006-05-20 09:06|| Front Page Top

#7 Haven't run numbers, but it seems like a huge amount of boost energy would be required for that, 'Moose. Any reason it wouldn't be more effective to use UAVs / UCAVs?? Known technology for guidance and release, easier fuels to deal with etc.

Maybe you're looking for quick flight time?

Posted by lotp 2006-05-20 09:16|| 2006-05-20 09:16|| Front Page Top

#8 The Russians have enough capability to make themselves dangerous. We should respect the damage their stupidity and ineptitude can do.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-05-20 09:35|| 2006-05-20 09:35|| Front Page Top

#9 5,000 hardened ceramic "bowling balls", is "dumped" over a wide area land target.

12 lbs. a pop that's 60,000 lbs. Roughly what can be launched by 5 Titans. Of couse it would be useless, since the bowling ballz from Thor would be unguided. A 12 lb. Napoleon projectile would produce the same effect.

All bets are off tho, if we can produce tiny, guided bowling ballz, with subminiature guidance systems.

Posted by 6 2006-05-20 09:55|| 2006-05-20 09:55|| Front Page Top

#10 All bets are off tho, if we can produce tiny, guided bowling ballz, with subminiature guidance systems.

I'm way scared now!

Posted by Dadullah 2006-05-20 10:45|| 2006-05-20 10:45|| Front Page Top

#11 It's only an expensive pleasure to those that can not afford it. If we could cap UBL with a 60 million dollar missle I would vote for it. It would only take one, game over. But in reality ICBM's could trigger over reactions in retaliations. Once we develope it so will other nations and then when a nuke is launced there will be confusion, if only for a few minutes that could give others an advantage.

Posted by 49 Pan">49 Pan 2006-05-20 11:22|| 2006-05-20 11:22|| Front Page Top

#12 All bets are off tho, if we can produce tiny, guided bowling ballz, with subminiature guidance systems.

That's fine for the first strike, but what about the other nine frames?

Posted by mrp 2006-05-20 12:14|| 2006-05-20 12:14|| Front Page Top

#13 What I find interesting is the fact that the russians are complaining in the first place. I get a strong whiff of the same panic that the soviets had about SDI. I wonder if that is because there is no good or truly effective conventional counter that the russians can produce, it can be used to take out those shiny, expensive new Topol-M's, and since it's conventional it puts the onus for first use of Nuclear Weapons squarely on the russians. It drives home in a truly undeniable way just how far behind the power&tech curve they've fallen.

All bets are off tho, if we can produce tiny, guided bowling ballz, with subminiature guidance systems

Did anyone else here have a mental image of the ACME Precision Guided Anvil(tm) from the Road Runner cartoons?

Posted by N guard 2006-05-20 12:21|| 2006-05-20 12:21|| Front Page Top

#14 Oh, before I forget:
Consider the actual cost of flying an airstrike package before complaining about the cost of the C-ICBM. Once you see how much, oh, an ARC-LIGHT raid costs in terms of fuel, maintence, and flying time for tankers & escort jammers, etc., the C-ICBM isn't that expensive.

Even cruise missiles, at typicaly ~$1 million a shot add up. For example, back in 1990's, we shot off ~= $70 Million in cruise missiles just to take out a couple of buildings in Sudan and to kill some goats in afganistan.

Posted by N guard 2006-05-20 12:32|| 2006-05-20 12:32|| Front Page Top

#15 C-ICBM is a nightmare. Let's say you have a Trident sub that's going to do a launch from somewhere. Now you gotta notify the French, Chicoms, Russkies, Brits, and maybe even the Israelis. Which means that now I have to send DoS to negotiate some sort of warning mechanism with each of those states. You know that the Chicoms, Russkies and French are going to hold out for the longest notification window possible and that's only after we bribe them enough to even consider sitting down at the table. So let's say that we can all agree to a two hour notification window. We prep to launch against OBL. As soon as they hang up with us, the French, Chicoms and Russkies are going to be on the hotline to ISI HQ, which will tell OBL to hightail it out of there. The end result is a bunch of dead puppies, ducklings, and fluffy bunnies, and every anti-American scumbag in the world crowing about how irresposible and evil we Yanquis are.

Posted by 11A5S 2006-05-20 13:23|| 2006-05-20 13:23|| Front Page Top

#16 Trident D5 acquisition cost (R&D not included) is listed at $29.1 million (fas.org) and $30.9 million (wikipedia). The CEP of the D5 is listed at 1250 ft, useless for a conventional warhead. Add to the cost numbers development/acquisition of a precision guided third stage.

Posted by ed 2006-05-20 13:40|| 2006-05-20 13:40|| Front Page Top

#17 Hit Submit to soon. The D% has a CEP of 300 ft. 1250 ft was for C4. Anyway, both are too large for a conventional warhead and a new precision guided warhead will be needed.

Posted by ed 2006-05-20 13:43|| 2006-05-20 13:43|| Front Page Top

#18 "As soon as they hang up with us, the French, Chicoms and Russkies are going to be on the hotline to ISI HQ, which will tell OBL to hightail it out of there."

Maybe we should test phone first and set up a NSA sting...get the caller and OBL!

Posted by Danielle 2006-05-20 14:50|| 2006-05-20 14:50|| Front Page Top

#19 Trident D5 acquisition cost (R&D not included) is listed at $29.1 million (fas.org) and $30.9 million (wikipedia). The CEP of the D5 is listed at 1250 ft, useless for a conventional warhead. Add to the cost numbers development/acquisition of a precision guided third stage.

Again you're looking at the wrong type of missile entirely. ICBMs are not whats being developed and for a major reason, their accuracy stinks. MRBMs and SRBMs however don't have as high a ballistic flight profile nor as long a boost phase (or even as high a boost velocity usually). Because of this theres virtually no treaty out there that covers the MRBMs issues and the US will need to stretch the rules of the INF treaty to get around it, but it will be done simply because it has to be done. More importantly those are easier to make very accurate. Pershing IIs for instance had an accuracy listed at around 45m at its max range. ATACMS these days can get their accuracy to down under 10m, an MRBM is easier to get accurate, its also coming in a slower speed in atmosphere.

Again as far as the Russkies complaining, that tends to be more of their own tracking problem issues.

Posted by valentine 2006-05-20 15:45|| 2006-05-20 15:45|| Front Page Top

#20 If you're talking MRBM, then yes - throw weight and cost are a bit more sustainable. Still not as accutrate as a g-hawk with hellfires or similar.

Maybe container ships with the TEL gear and some Pershing equivalents, designed for HE with penetrators. Patrol the Indian ocean. Should reduce the exposure to accidental misidentification (i.e. it be lower speed, lower trajectory), more accurate, and even less possible response time. And only India would need to be warned that we were firing over top of them.

Could even be done covertly. I'm sure if we shared a few of the TEL sets and containers, the Israelis woudl be lglad to flag a few cargo ships for us to put "special" loads aboard. And unlike the US, Israel is pretty damn good with keeping a secret (they have direct realization of the cost of blowign secrets unlike our press).

Posted by Oldspook 2006-05-20 17:55|| 2006-05-20 17:55|| Front Page Top

#21 The Air Force and Space Command boyz are moving GMD towards having the ability to destroy enemy missles on their own launch pads or sites, to include the ability of destroying enemy missles while these are in deployment/transit stage to their launch areas. All of our armed services will possess some form of GMD capability, missle-base and laser-based. The Failed Left and America's enemies are aware of this, which is why they gave America Year 2015-2020 to adopt Socialism and OWG, or be destroyed by any means necessary. Russia-China don't have to wait for the year 2030, 2045, 2050, or beyond to allegedly par = surpass hyperpower America becuz hyperpower America is not meant to be around after 2020 to ccompete against - OOOOOOOOPPPPPPS, how does Britney, again, get herself into these things???

Posted by JosephMendiola 2006-05-20 22:04|| 2006-05-20 22:04|| Front Page Top

09:52 bk
23:59 Redneck Jim
23:59 DMFD
23:58 Darrell
23:58 mhw
23:49 Redneck Jim
23:44 Bangkok Billy
23:39 SOP35/Rat
23:20 bigjim-ky
23:18 Old Patriot
23:15 bigjim-ky
23:11 Anonymoose
23:04 Frank G
23:00 Manolo
23:00 bigjim-ky
22:56 junkirony
22:53 JosephMendiola
22:50 JosephMendiola
22:49 Manolo
22:45 Frank G
22:41 JosephMendiola
22:36 JosephMendiola
22:34 Frank G
22:33 Frank G