Weaponization of orbital vehicles

[World B4]

MSN

The Cold War generally established the different requirements for an orbital vehicle and ICBM, so we don't see the weaponized launch vehicle designs that existed before experience revealed their flaws. This is a different animal though, a conventional weapon of terror. Usable, crucially. A soyuz rocket with a weaponized payload could be devastating, if that payload could eject its warheads before patriot missiles could intercept and hit the clump of them. Inaccurate, sure. But Kyiv is big. Many wars have been won when a side reveals a new way to devastate the enemy cities and civilian population, so it's probably worth a try. I don't think it's really viable as a single large warhead missile, as tracking data from allies, the presumably predictable and limited reentry speed and trajectory of a glorified barrel bomb, and the desire for propaganda points means that Ukraine will at least try to shoot it down, and it might work. If accuracy is a non factor, better to blanket the city

 

[RanulfC]

The 'fall' from orbit (and you'd need to add retro-rockets to those warheads to get them OUT of orbit) takes a while (about 10 to 30 minutes IIRC?) and the reentry makes them really hot and easy to track. Taking out falling suborbital warheads is part of what the Patriot is designed to do. If you're thinking something like the "Thor" system keep in mind it takes as much energy to 'stop' (and drop) a payload as it did to get it into orbit in the first place. Usually this is where that long fall through the atmosphere trading velocity for heating takes place. Any "shortcut" would need a bigger rocket to do the same job.

Randy

 

[publiusr]

Still better than a carrier group that needs a week of travel

 

[World B4]

MSN

 

[Byeman]

Still better than a carrier group that needs a week of travel

not true

 

[shin_getter]

So little payload for such a high cost, it is pointless outside of PR.

The real age of continental conventional strikes would happen after starship is a thing.... enough payload to saturate a carrier task force in one sortie is no joke.

 

[publiusr]

Which is probably why Space Force took so long in coming. When the USAF formed as its own branch…taking a lot of funding with it—everybody closed ranks and Space was divvied up so each branch could keep their respective thumbs on it.

That’s my guess.

Now that they can have wish lists of their own—look out.

 

[Byeman]

Which is probably why Space Force took so long in coming. When the USAF formed as its own branch…taking a lot of funding with it—everybody closed ranks and Space was divvied up so each branch could keep their respective thumbs on it.

Space wasn't really divvied up. The Army only got long communications but no satellites. Navy only got tactical comm. The Air Force got the rest. Space Force took so long because of the government.
In the 60's, it was only the NRO really launching things. Military comsats didn't happen until the latter part of the 60's. Same goes for missile warning. VELA was the only operational non NRO payload of the 60's.

 

[Byeman]

The real age of continental conventional strikes would happen after starship is a thing.... enough payload to saturate a carrier task force in one sortie is no joke.

Not really. They are too vulnerable and too conspicuous. Setting up the payload is going to take too long and there isn't room for that much of that type of munitions at the launch sites.

 

[Satanforce]

So little payload for such a high cost, it is pointless outside of PR.

The real age of continental conventional strikes would happen after starship is a thing.... enough payload to saturate a carrier task force in one sortie is no joke.

You do realize that any super-heavy launch vehicle like Sea Dragon or Starship would be destroyed on the launch pad? Or during the extensive preparations required to get a launch ready?

The level of discussion here has really dropped if this topic is being posted.

 

[Satanforce]

Still better than a carrier group that needs a week of travel

And how long do think it would take to prepare that payload and launch vehicle?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Space wasn't really divvied up. The Army only got long communications but no satellites. Navy only got tactical comm. The Air Force got the rest. Space Force took so long because of the government.
In the 60's, it was only the NRO really launching things. Military comsats didn't happen until the latter part of the 60's. Same goes for missile warning. VELA was the only operational non NRO payload of the 60's.

Army also got some mapping and tactical intel work, as I understand it from a friend who got headhunted to work there... (He didn't want the job, he'd done a lot of organizational design and wanted someone else to work there to find things he missed).

Still better than a carrier group that needs a week of travel

How long do you think it'd take to prep that city-busting mission, considering that you'd need to drop a dozen or more "Rods from God" in order to deal with a large city? (actually, more like a couple hundred smaller darts, each about 10-15kg)

You'd need to design a bus stage, which is unique to a ballistic missile. Satellite launchers don't need a bus stage the same type, all their payload weight is centered on the bus. Then you'd need to flight test it to make sure that nobody messed up on the math. Once it flight tested with dummy loads, you'd need to test it with some actual kinetic darts to drop. Oh, and everyone is going to be watching you do this, so it's going to be well known that you have the capability.

You'd also need BALPARS data (winds aloft and a bunch of other stuff) over the target, plus an orbit that would put the target under the drop's footprint. Otherwise you aim the drop at Minsk and watch it land on Pinsk.

 

[publiusr]

They would be launched as a "spysat" in peacetime.

Not so much for city busting...but a reasonably fast strike should certain conditions occur.

 

[Scott Kenny]

They would be launched as a "spysat" in peacetime.

Not so much for city busting...but a reasonably fast strike should certain conditions occur.

30 minutes or so from satellite dropping the load to impact, maybe a little quicker.

If the satellite is in the right spot to drop.

 

[Yellow Palace]

30 minutes or so from satellite dropping the load to impact, maybe a little quicker.

If the satellite is in the right spot to drop.

And inordinate cost to do so. Even assuming you can get stuff in orbit cheaply, you still have to get it in orbit. And back again.

If you can do that cheaply, you can skip the orbital bit and do it even more cheaply. A conventional ICBM could give global coverage with one vehicle, reaction time as fast as an ideally-located orbital bus, and be cheaper. It could even be arms control compliant - put it on a defended soft pad at a non-nuclear location and invite inspectors. It'll necessarily have toitally different performance to a nuclear ICBM anyway.

 

[Scott Kenny]

If you can do that cheaply, you can skip the orbital bit and do it even more cheaply. A conventional ICBM could give global coverage with one vehicle, reaction time as fast as an ideally-located orbital bus, and be cheaper. It could even be arms control compliant - put it on a defended soft pad at a non-nuclear location and invite inspectors. It'll necessarily have toitally different performance to a nuclear ICBM anyway.

That was certainly my thoughts on conventional prompt strike missiles. Base them at a non-nuclear base and allow any nation that asks to check the birds for radioactives. Further state that any launch from that location will always be a conventional warhead.

I'm sure the US has some old Titan or whatever silos still available... Figure 100 or so tops.

 

[Yellow Palace]

That was certainly my thoughts on conventional prompt strike missiles. Base them at a non-nuclear base and allow any nation that asks to check the birds for radioactives. Further state that any launch from that location will always be a conventional warhead.

I'm sure the US has some old Titan or whatever silos still available... Figure 100 or so tops.

Don't even need siloes. Stick them on pads at Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg, or wherever gives the needed launch azimuths without dropping spent stages on people. These things aren't riding out a nuclear exchange anyway, and maintenance is easier when you aren't down a hole.

 

[Byeman]

Army also got some mapping and tactical intel work, as I understand it from a friend who got headhunted to work there... (He didn't want the job, he'd done a lot of organizational design and wanted someone else to work there to find things he missed).

NRO did it for them.

 

[Byeman]

They would be launched as a "spysat" in peacetime.

Then it would be in an orbit that maybe not pass over the target for days.

 

[Byeman]

I'm sure the US has some old Titan or whatever silos still available... Figure 100 or so tops.

Nope, it doesn't.
A. There were only 60 or so Titan II silos. All demilitarized
b same for Titan I
c. 75 or so Atlas silo demilitarized
d. There are only 450 or so Minuteman III sites. All Minuteman II and Peacekeeper sites have been demilitarized

You would have to built new sites for conventionally armed ICBMs. And this still doesn't ensure others thinking they are nuclear.

The "or so" is to include Vandenberg sites.

 

[Byeman]

These things aren't riding out a nuclear exchange anyway, and maintenance is easier when you aren't down a hole.

Not really. A silo is better than the Cape environment. Titan II silo provided great access to the vehicle and it was climate controlled. Same with the Minuteman. It only had to access one part of the vehicle, the guidance system.

 

[Byeman]

It'll necessarily have toitally different performance to a nuclear ICBM anyway.

It is the exact same performance as a nuclear ICBM

 

[Scott Kenny]

Don't even need siloes. Stick them on pads at Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg, or wherever gives the needed launch azimuths without dropping spent stages on people. These things aren't riding out a nuclear exchange anyway, and maintenance is easier when you aren't down a hole.

Silos provide protection from things like earthquakes and hurricanes.

And maintenance is much easier when you're in shirt sleeves at 72degF/20degC with no need for thick gloves or whatever.

NRO did it for them.

Not all of it, not according to my friend who worked there. (Pretty sure he's transferred elsewhere now)

Nope, it doesn't.
A. There were only 60 or so Titan II silos. All demilitarized
b same for Titan I
c. 75 or so Atlas silo demilitarized
d. There are only 450 or so Minuteman III sites. All Minuteman II and Peacekeeper sites have been demilitarized

You would have to built new sites for conventionally armed ICBMs. And this still doesn't ensure others thinking they are nuclear.

The "or so" is to include Vandenberg sites.

Bugger.

Then we build some new silos I guess. Gonna raise the price of the program something fierce, though.

And this still doesn't ensure others thinking they are nuclear.

The standing offer of open inspections should help prevent others from assuming that they're nuclear armed. Especially if you don't do the usual shell games with multiple trucks per missile, do all missile pulls openly, typical base security instead of nuclear base security, etc.

It is the exact same performance as a nuclear ICBM

I'm expecting even greater performance than a nuclear ICBM, since the kinetics will have a much smaller effect you will need a much greater number of them and more physical weight than nuclear warheads. Something on the order of the RS-28 Sarmat "Satan 2", with 10 tonnes of throw weight or more, and I'd expect 20 tonnes throw weight as being needed for a kinetic city buster.

Even if the kinetics land at Mach 9, 3km/s, they're only going to pack their own weight in kinetic energy. IIRC that's a high speed for most reentry vehicles, most land at Mach 3-6.

 

[Byeman]

Not all of it, not according to my friend who worked there. (Pretty sure he's transferred elsewhere now)

The Army hasn't built or funded any satellites since Von Braun went to NASA. There have been no "Army" spacecraft launched. The Army is only a user of data provided by satellites built by others.

The standing offer of open inspections should help prevent others from assuming that they're nuclear armed. Especially if you don't do the usual shell games with multiple trucks per missile, do all missile pulls openly, typical base security instead of nuclear base security, etc.

That applies for us but not other countries.

 

[Byeman]

I'm expecting even greater performance than a nuclear ICBM, since the kinetics will have a much smaller effect you will need a much greater number of them and more physical weight than nuclear warheads. Something on the order of the RS-28 Sarmat "Satan 2", with 10 tonnes of throw weight or more, and I'd expect 20 tonnes throw weight as being needed for a kinetic city buster.

Even if the kinetics land at Mach 9, 3km/s, they're only going to pack their own weight in kinetic energy. IIRC that's a high speed for most reentry vehicles, most land at Mach 3-6.

The point isn't to replace the nuclear effects or carpet bombing. The point is to replace the current delivery platforms of conventional weapons with a quick response one. Instead of waiting for a carrier to get in position or setting up and launching bomber mission that will take several days. An ICBM or two can be launch in a few hours to take out a building (like the Iraqi comm center).

If you need more acreage bombed, take out the anti air assets with the ICBMs and then send in the bombers later

 

[Scott Kenny]

The point isn't to replace the nuclear effects or carpet bombing. The point is to replace the current delivery platforms of conventional weapons with a quick response one. Instead of waiting for a carrier to get in position or setting up and launching bomber mission that will take several days. An ICBM or two can be launch in a few hours to take out a building (like the Iraqi comm center).

If you need more acreage bombed, take out the anti air assets with the ICBMs and then send in the bombers later

Bunker busting heavy precision strike will also require a heavy payload. Say, using one of those 30klb MOP bombs as the warhead on a missile, which is a heavier load than even the RS-28 can do. You'd probably be looking at 4x GBU28 or the GBU-72 JDAM version.

 

[Byeman]

Bunker busting heavy precision strike will also require a heavy payload. Say, using one of those 30klb MOP bombs as the warhead on a missile, which is a heavier load than even the RS-28 can do. You'd probably be looking at 4x GBU28 or the GBU-72 JDAM version.

Not really. KE is 1/2 m v^2. The bomb casing itself will do enough damage. Don't need the explosive or as much. Just make a smart "Tod of God". If a standard bomb's terminal velocity is just below Mach 1, hitting at Mach 2, 3, 4 or 5 is going to be 4, 9, 16 or 25 times the energy. . Not saying completely using 4, 9, 16 or 25 times less mass , but there are trades.

 

[Satanforce]

Not really. KE is 1/2 m v^2. The bomb casing itself will do enough damage. Don't need the explosive or as much. Just make a smart "Tod of God". If a standard bomb's terminal velocity is just below Mach 1, hitting at Mach 2, 3, 4 or 5 is going to be 4, 9, 16 or 25 times the energy. . Not saying completely using 4, 9, 16 or 25 times less mass , but there are trades.

Kinetic energy is only one variable. Most materials impacting at those speeds will simple fracture in various ways.

 

[Satanforce]

It is the exact same performance as a nuclear ICBM

What parameter are we measuring , in terms of performance?

 

[Byeman]

What parameter are we measuring , in terms of performance?

the same vehicle

 

[Byeman]

Kinetic energy is only one variable. Most materials impacting at those speeds will simple fracture in various ways.

the warhead can be designed to convert the energy into destructive force vs just penetrating

 

[publiusr]

Then it would be in an orbit that maybe not pass over the target for days.

You would have several. If Starship does work, maybe have precessing Molniya orbits so there is always something coming in.

No need to de-orbit from a circular LEO set-up--maybe just do a lesser burn such that the Molniya orbit now intersects with the ground?

 

[Scott Kenny]

Not really. KE is 1/2 m v^2. The bomb casing itself will do enough damage. Don't need the explosive or as much. Just make a smart "Tod of God". If a standard bomb's terminal velocity is just below Mach 1, hitting at Mach 2, 3, 4 or 5 is going to be 4, 9, 16 or 25 times the energy. . Not saying completely using 4, 9, 16 or 25 times less mass , but there are trades.

And at 3km/s, an object packs its own weight in TNT in kinetic energy.

The GBU-28 holds 630lbs of tritonal. I'm getting different numbers for TNT equivalence. in terms of MJ/kg, tritonal is over double TNT (9MJ/kg versus 4MJ/kg), yet another paragraph in the same article says it's only 18% greater than TNT, and a TNT equivalence table says 1.05.

The GBU28 needs that explosive kicker to destroy a deeply buried bunker by exploding inside the "void"/air space of the bunker.

I don't believe that a purely kinetic strike will be able to destroy a deeply buried bunker.

 

[Yellow Palace]

It is the exact same performance as a nuclear ICBM

It'll stage at different times, have different thrust characteristics, possibly have a different-looking exhaust plume. Enough that it'll be distinguishable from a nuclear ICBM to observers.

You could use the same missiles if you wanted small payloads - on the order of 500 kilograms maximum - but if you want big payloads you'll need a new, bigger missile.

Silos provide protection from things like earthquakes and hurricanes.

And maintenance is much easier when you're in shirt sleeves at 72degF/20degC with no need for thick gloves or whatever.

Then build an air-conditioned hangar. It'll likely be cheaper than excavating a silo.

I'm not saying any of this is a good idea, mind. Just that it's better than keeping a kinetic payload in orbit. The real world programs aimed at this capability are all in-atmosphere hypersonic weapon systems.

 

[Scott Kenny]

It'll stage at different times, have different thrust characteristics, possibly have a different-looking exhaust plume. Enough that it'll be distinguishable from a nuclear ICBM to observers.

You could use the same missiles if you wanted small payloads - on the order of 500 kilograms maximum - but if you want big payloads you'll need a new, bigger missile.

If you have such a large missile, why wouldn't you also load it with nukes, though?

Then build an air-conditioned hangar. It'll likely be cheaper than excavating a silo.

I'm not saying any of this is a good idea, mind. Just that it's better than keeping a kinetic payload in orbit. The real world programs aimed at this capability are all in-atmosphere hypersonic weapon systems.

Can't launch directly from a hangar. You can launch directly from a silo.

And the Russians may have gotten sneaky when they declared their Avanguard HGVs as nuclear weapons carriers despite the capability to be conventional. They've set the precedent that all HGVs count as nuclear weapons carriers in treaty terms.

 

[Byeman]

You would have several. If Starship does work, maybe have precessing Molniya orbits so there is always something coming in.

No need to de-orbit from a circular LEO set-up--maybe just do a lesser burn such that the Molniya orbit now intersects with the ground?

Wrong Molniya doesn't work for this
a. Molniya is good for viewing much of the world, which is useless because what is needed is to fly over most of the world
b It is a repeating orbit over the same ground track. Which is very small
c. The perigee ground track (perigee is the only part of the orbit that deorbit can occur) is only over the southern hemisphere.

In the photo. I have annotated in red the portions of the orbit that deorbit can occur. It is also shows the limited ground trace.

 

[Byeman]

It'll stage at different times, have different thrust characteristics, possibly have a different-looking exhaust plume. Enough that it'll be distinguishable from a nuclear ICBM to observers.

You could use the same missiles if you wanted small payloads - on the order of 500 kilograms maximum - but if you want big payloads you'll need a new, bigger missile.

Not true. Minuteman III could be used. It carried 3 RVs that weighed 700-800 lbs, not to mentions decoys and countermeasures. Plenty for some conventional or kinetic warheads.

 

[Byeman]

And the Russians may have gotten sneaky when they declared their Avanguard HGVs as nuclear weapons carriers despite the capability to be conventional. They've set the precedent that all HGVs count as nuclear weapons carriers in treaty terms.

That is why open inspections doesn't work to classify them as conventional.

 

[Scott Kenny]

That is why open inspections doesn't work to classify them as conventional.

Beg to differ, that's two entirely different things at play here.

The Russians set the treaty precedent that all their Avangards were declared nuclear weapons carriers. Even though they said that the system can carry conventional warheads, they voluntarily accepted the restrictions in terms of reducing the total number of missiles they're allowed. So that when the US deploys HGVs, we have to declare ours to be nuclear capable or somehow prove that a weapon that is kept on bases with nukes is somehow non-nuclear.

Having a system that is not physically near any nuclear armed missiles; that does not have the required specialty storage facilities for nukes; that does not do any of the shell games you do for nukes like putting a shed over the silo when they pull a bird out and having two trucks with trailers per missile; does not have the Nuclear Weapons Security teams, equipment, or housing necessary for nukes on base; and that is literally open for anyone to come inspect and on open record say that they did not find any nuclear capable systems on that base is how you have a Conventional Prompt Strike ability.

Bonus if the missile you are using for CPS is too big to stuff into a D5 or MM3 silo.

 

[publiusr]

In the photo. I have annotated in red the portions of the orbit that deorbit can occur. It is also shows the limited ground trace.

Limited, yes...but no launch plume during hostilities, and an ASSET type bus can widen things a bit to either side. If filled with shot... that's enough of a spread for anything airborne to be in a ballistic footprint after the bus tacks a bit.

A re-entry body can do a rather violent turn if nothing living is in it.