Register here

Author Topic: A peek on future american SLBMs and ICBMs  (Read 159246 times)

avatar

  • Guest
Re: A peek on future american SLBMs and ICBMs
« Reply #15 on: April 25, 2009, 07:52:14 am »
The Israelis have of course sought to get round this problem vis a vis the Iranians by developing the bluebird system.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8440
Re: A peek on future american SLBMs and ICBMs
« Reply #16 on: April 25, 2009, 10:29:46 pm »
If you Google "new underwater launched missile system" you get a couple hits on the USN exploring a SLBM missile tube for a possible Trident replacement with a diameter of 120" (the D5 is 87" in diameter). This is basically the diameter of the Russian R-36M although it would not be nearly as tall based on internal limitations of the sub. Has anyone else seen or heard anything about this. ATK is working on a 40" diameter intermediate range sub launched missile so will some tubes be multiple missiles per tube?

Does this all tie together with future reductions in nuclear weapons? There is speculation that the Trident replacement will be a modified Virginia class boat with a "missile plug" giving it more overall length than the SSN but considerably cheaper than a totally new SSBN design.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2009, 10:40:33 pm by bobbymike »
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10788
Re: A peek on future american SLBMs and ICBMs
« Reply #17 on: April 26, 2009, 07:19:40 am »
Is ATK still working on the 40" missile?  The removed it from their site several years ago.  They also removed mention of a surface to surface version of KEI.  (Same missile different warhead obviously.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8440
Re: A peek on future american SLBMs and ICBMs
« Reply #18 on: April 26, 2009, 04:53:42 pm »
I can still find it on their website, takes some fiddling around and a Chinese hacker (just kidding) Go to ATK site click on capabilities, space systems and then missiles and you should find it. Submarine Launched Intermediate Range Ballistic Missile. The KEI version is there as well Forward Based Conventional Strike.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: A peek on future american SLBMs and ICBMs
« Reply #19 on: April 27, 2009, 06:25:48 am »
Quote
There is speculation that the Trident replacement will be a modified Virginia class boat with a "missile plug" giving it more overall length than the SSN but considerably cheaper than a totally new SSBN design.

Deja vu....

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10788
Re: A peek on future american SLBMs and ICBMs
« Reply #20 on: April 27, 2009, 08:30:16 am »
Quote
There is speculation that the Trident replacement will be a modified Virginia class boat with a "missile plug" giving it more overall length than the SSN but considerably cheaper than a totally new SSBN design.

Deja vu....

Skipjack/George Washington.  I'd rather they stretched a Seawolf but oh well.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8440
Re: A peek on future american SLBMs and ICBMs
« Reply #21 on: April 27, 2009, 10:34:37 am »
Pure "informed" speculation on my part but I'm guessing that current arms control negotiations want to go down to 500 or so deployed warheads. 250 on ICBM's 250 on subs in theory. So Trident is much too big a system. You can go down to 1 warhead per D5 but that would be pretty wasteful use of space. However, you will go down to one warhead/D5 until they are replaced. So eight 120" tubes per modified Virgina carrying 3 missiles each or 24 single warhead missiles per sub X 10 subs = 240 warheads?

Since the Virginia is meant to be more stealthy in the littorals than an intermediate range SLBM might be all you will need unless the Russians or Chinese develop the ability to track them and then it will be too late. My point being that 500 warheads no matter how you deploy them does not give me confidence that the nuclear deterrent is safe from a counter-force attack.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: A peek on future american SLBMs and ICBMs
« Reply #22 on: April 27, 2009, 11:12:56 am »
120 inches, mmmmm, am I wrong or that was precisely the diameter of the Naval Jupiter ?
BTW, a 37 inches missile or a 120 inches one is a rather different thing in term of what you want to do.
BTW2, the more you decline in numbers of DELIVERY SYSTEMS, the more you are prone to a successfull first strike. But this only IF the adversary has MIRVs. That's why START started (pun intended) to count warheads too.

My uninformed speculation is that 500 warheads are much too low a number, expecially with an ABM treaty no more in existance.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10788
Re: A peek on future american SLBMs and ICBMs
« Reply #23 on: April 27, 2009, 11:49:10 am »
My uninformed speculation is that 500 warheads are much too low a number, expecially with an ABM treaty no more in existance.

Especially with warheads being smaller and smaller.  Even with high accuracy some targets require more BANG or will end up soaking up multiple warheads which further reduces the effectiveness of a small arsenal.
« Last Edit: April 27, 2009, 01:12:47 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8440
Re: A peek on future american SLBMs and ICBMs
« Reply #24 on: April 27, 2009, 12:14:27 pm »
I agree that 500 is too small a number just wait for "zero nukes" policy ??? There is absolutely no strategic rationale to go below the SORT limit of 1700 to 2200 deployed warheads. Russia will only agree if missile defenses are limited which given the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. who knows.

SORT still allows enough flexibility to keep the traditional Triad while deterring future peer competition IMO (China). If defense spending continues to be under the gun the easiest thing to cut will be nukes. I can hear the cries of "who needs them anyway", now.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8503
Re: A peek on future american SLBMs and ICBMs
« Reply #25 on: April 27, 2009, 01:07:37 pm »
don't forget of our southwest comrades...we need some pile to sleep good...just in case...nothing offensive
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8440
Re: A peek on future american SLBMs and ICBMs
« Reply #26 on: April 29, 2009, 10:42:31 pm »
From Crosslinks magazine published by The Aerospace Corporation:

The most effective approach arose through Aerospace studies in 1966 of a new missile system, WS 120A, conceived as the successor to the Minuteman and planned as a major deterrent for the late 1970s and beyond. The WS 120A would be a large missile packed with 10 to 20 reentry vehicles

Anyone hear of this missile and what its dimensions might have been? As large as the SS-9 or SS-18?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: A peek on future american SLBMs and ICBMs
« Reply #27 on: April 30, 2009, 01:27:11 am »
Eheheh, everyone arrives at that Crosslink article, sooner or later. There is a brief description of WS-120 in "designation systems" website by Andreas Parsch. WS-120 was more a concept for an heavy solid fuel ICBM than a precise design, or better, there were various different designs. From what was published in aerospace magazine around the end of the '60s (AW&ST, but not only that) the average configuration was for something intermediate between a Titan II and an MX. I have a grahic from AW&ST from a later time, during the early planning phases of MX, and the chosen configuration wasn't the largest (to the contrary). WS-120 floundered for budgetary reasons during the early Nixon-era budget crisis and for uncertainity on, guess what, basing modes. I'll start a separate topic on this, though.
BTW, but this is yet another story, the US did a grave misjudgement in not developing MIRV for the Titan II.

Online sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 10788
Re: A peek on future american SLBMs and ICBMs
« Reply #28 on: April 30, 2009, 05:21:44 am »
Eheheh, everyone arrives at that Crosslink article, sooner or later. There is a brief description of WS-120 in "designation systems" website by Andreas Parsch. WS-120 was more a concept for an heavy solid fuel ICBM than a precise design, or better, there were various different designs. From what was published in aerospace magazine around the end of the '60s (AW&ST, but not only that) the average configuration was for something intermediate between a Titan II and an MX. I have a grahic from AW&ST from a later time, during the early planning phases of MX, and the chosen configuration wasn't the largest (to the contrary). WS-120 floundered for budgetary reasons during the early Nixon-era budget crisis and for uncertainity on, guess what, basing modes. I'll start a separate topic on this, though.
BTW, but this is yet another story, the US did a grave misjudgement in not developing MIRV for the Titan II.

I haven't heard much about ANY Titan II developements other than a notional 35Mt warhead for it that they decided they didn't need.  Don't know why, as you pointed out, it had a lot of potential.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Skybolt

  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2288
Re: A peek on future american SLBMs and ICBMs
« Reply #29 on: April 30, 2009, 09:19:15 am »
A MIRV concept was envisaged both for Atlas and Titan I (Mk-14) and Titan II (Mk-13). Both were cancelled in 1963, Mk-14 because the two carrier missile were obsolescent, and Mk-13 due to the low number on Titan in operation (54). Nevertheless, the idea was still considered in 1964: the Mk-12 design criteria of that year states tha a version of Mk-12 could be deployed aboard a Titan II.