• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Conventional Trident vs. Hard Targets

quellish

I don’t read The Drive. The Drive reads me.
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
2,193
Reaction score
250
This will be of great interest to some.

http://www.dtic.mil/srch/doc?collection=t3&id=ADA318768
"A Hard and Deepl Buried Target Defeat Concept", Swinford, Nancy F & Kudlick, Dean A, Lockheed Martin Missiles & Space, 1996
 

Skybolt

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2006
Messages
2,299
Reaction score
154
The idea had circulated 15 years before during the FOFA (Follow-On Forces Attack) elaboration in early to mid-80s. The idea was to use SLBM to attack areal targets like airports with cluster and concrete piercing warheads. Search FOFA on Google and DTIC.
 

Lauge

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
434
Reaction score
13
quellish said:
This will be of great interest to some.

http://www.dtic.mil/srch/doc?collection=t3&id=ADA318768
"A Hard and Deepl Buried Target Defeat Concept", Swinford, Nancy F & Kudlick, Dean A, Lockheed Martin Missiles & Space, 1996

As I remember reading on related topics, I still think this will come up against the problem that, to the vast majority of people (certainly to those people with their fingers on the Red Button), SLBM launch equals Nuke.

Using SLBM's for conventional attack would, as I see it, introduce a potentially very dangerous ambiguity. How would e.g. the Russians or the Chinese react to a sudden launch of one, two, five or more US (conventional - but they can't know that) SLBM's from somewhere in the South Atlantic? At the very best, I fear, we'd merely be talking a widespread change of underwear...... ;)

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,863
Reaction score
2,126
Lauge said:
quellish said:
This will be of great interest to some.

http://www.dtic.mil/srch/doc?collection=t3&id=ADA318768
"A Hard and Deepl Buried Target Defeat Concept", Swinford, Nancy F & Kudlick, Dean A, Lockheed Martin Missiles & Space, 1996

As I remember reading on related topics, I still think this will come up against the problem that, to the vast majority of people (certainly to those people with their fingers on the Red Button), SLBM launch equals Nuke.

Using SLBM's for conventional attack would, as I see it, introduce a potentially very dangerous ambiguity. How would e.g. the Russians or the Chinese react to a sudden launch of one, two, five or more US (conventional - nut they can't know that) SLBM's from somewhere in the South Atlantic? At the very best, I fear, we'd merely be talking a widespread change of underwear...... ;)

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Well that's one opinion. ::)
 

Firefly 2

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
461
Reaction score
8
sferrin said:
Lauge said:
quellish said:
This will be of great interest to some.

http://www.dtic.mil/srch/doc?collection=t3&id=ADA318768
"A Hard and Deepl Buried Target Defeat Concept", Swinford, Nancy F & Kudlick, Dean A, Lockheed Martin Missiles & Space, 1996

As I remember reading on related topics, I still think this will come up against the problem that, to the vast majority of people (certainly to those people with their fingers on the Red Button), SLBM launch equals Nuke.

Using SLBM's for conventional attack would, as I see it, introduce a potentially very dangerous ambiguity. How would e.g. the Russians or the Chinese react to a sudden launch of one, two, five or more US (conventional - nut they can't know that) SLBM's from somewhere in the South Atlantic? At the very best, I fear, we'd merely be talking a widespread change of underwear...... ;)

Regards & all,

Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg

Well that's one opinion. ::)

Sferrin, you obviously disagree. Would you care to elaborate your view on this matter?
 

JohnR

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2006
Messages
790
Reaction score
236
I would agree with Lauge, if a Ballistic missile launch was detected by an opponent (I'm being politically correct), they would automatically retaliate with the launch of their ballistic missiles.

Surely this was the concept behind M.A.D.?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,863
Reaction score
2,126
How 'bout starting a thread discussing the perceived pitfalls of conventional ballistic missiles in the bar? Isn't that the place for opinion threads?
 

Similar threads

Top