Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Re-Imagining 'Prompt Global Strike"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re-Imagining 'Prompt Global Strike"

    Military Drops Crazy ‘ICBMs vs. Terrorists’ Plan | Danger Room | Wired.com


    This proposal brings up the same question: how can you tell the difference between a nuclear-armed and a conventionally-armed warhead? And more importantly, what does this do to close the gap in intelligence? Response time means little if the intel is wrong.

  • #2
    I think it comes down to capabilities; so far (and for the forseeable future), we don't have the capability of putting a thermonuclear warhead on any our hypersonic vehicles. Is it possible? Probably. But it's not something we'll be doing in the near future. I think we'll have enough trouble just making them reliable enough with a conventional warhead, let alone a nuke.
    "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

    Comment


    • #3
      I wonder how much the unit cost of a hypersonic glide missile would be, and how far out from IOC it might be.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by HKDan View Post
        I wonder how much the unit cost of a hypersonic glide missile would be, and how far out from IOC it might be.
        And what exactly are they going to strike with those hypersonic missiles? Surely not mud huts?

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by citanon View Post
          And what exactly are they going to strike with those hypersonic missiles? Surely not mud huts?
          I can think of at least two people who might eventually be found in a mud hut that would totally be worth striking with one of these. However, the point that it isn't a good use of resources to develop an entirely new system just to have the ability to hit those two jerks if the opportunity arises is valid. The other justification for such a system would be time critical strikes against key enemy systems at the start of a conflict.
          Last edited by HKDan; 03 Mar 11,, 05:51.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by joshduck541 View Post
            Military Drops Crazy ‘ICBMs vs. Terrorists’ Plan | Danger Room | Wired.com


            This proposal brings up the same question: how can you tell the difference between a nuclear-armed and a conventionally-armed warhead? And more importantly, what does this do to close the gap in intelligence? Response time means little if the intel is wrong.
            As been often stated here, there is no such thing as launch-on-warning, the chances of accidental launch are too great. All powers have a launch-on-impact policy which should be able to distinguish between a nuclear event and a conventional attack.

            There is a danger that if the missile goes high enough and get enough PE, that once translated to KE that it could equal the power of a small nuke but nothing I've seen would indicate the current or the next generation of missiles are going that high.

            Comment


            • #7
              First, you're correct, and I apologize for my ignorance in regards to launch-on-warning. But my issue is with the fact that hypersonic technology, while still in its infancy, is still rather unexplored from an arms control standpoint.

              So I guess I'm asking, would it be possible that a conventional warhead, deployed outside the atmosphere, could release enough kinetic energy to resemble a nuclear detonation? I mean, don't warning systems monitor seismic activity, as well as radiation?

              Comment


              • #8
                Project THOR which were to station, essentially, giant crowbars up to the size of a small car in outer space to be dropped on anybody's head. The largest ones would have the PE of a small nuke. The problem is getting high enough and that would take days from launch to actually get into high enough orbit to have that kind of KE. That was why Project THOR wanted to put the crowbars into space, so that there is no such lag.

                However, given the ABM Treaty, the US decided to abandon the project.

                Baring that, I don't see how a surface launch missile can have the same KE as a car sized crowbar dropped from high orbit.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                  However, given the ABM Treaty, the US decided to abandon the project.
                  That brings up another question: Where would this fall among current arms control treaties? One can assume that this could be considered a strategic delivery platform.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    If Project THOR is resurrected today? It would have to be a brand new treaty since the current treaties only count systems in existence, not imaginary ones that were abandoned decades ago.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Could you provide any links that would elaborate on Project THOR? All I'm seeing so far is Wikipedia, and the source links there are few and far between.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        You might try kinetic bombardment but the reason for a lack of sources is that it never left the concept stage, never mind even seeing the drawing board. No system was ever devised, even on paper. Most of what you read will be science fiction dreamed up by the guys who worked on the project and other scientists thinking this through.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by joshduck541 View Post
                          Military Drops Crazy ‘ICBMs vs. Terrorists’ Plan | Danger Room | Wired.com


                          This proposal brings up the same question: how can you tell the difference between a nuclear-armed and a conventionally-armed warhead? And more importantly, what does this do to close the gap in intelligence? Response time means little if the intel is wrong.
                          A simple measure that was proposed some years ago by the pro PGS crowd favoring the Minuteman III airframe was to station the PGS launch facility above ground on the Eastern Seaboard, possibly at the spaceport in Virgina. This is far enough away from Malmstrom that a PGS launch could not be confused with an ICBM launch from that location. Too, operating PGS above ground far away from nuclear weapon facilities makes it very easy for verification inspections by representatives of Powers That It May Concern.

                          As to the intelligence problem, smart bombs are certainly no substitute for dumb policy and dumber intelligence estimates but I think I have a better way that I will outline in response to something Officer of Engineers said (see below).

                          William
                          Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Officer of Engineers View Post
                            Project THOR which were to station, essentially, giant crowbars up to the size of a small car in outer space to be dropped on anybody's head. The largest ones would have the PE of a small nuke. The problem is getting high enough and that would take days from launch to actually get into high enough orbit to have that kind of KE. That was why Project THOR wanted to put the crowbars into space, so that there is no such lag.

                            However, given the ABM Treaty, the US decided to abandon the project.

                            Baring that, I don't see how a surface launch missile can have the same KE as a car sized crowbar dropped from high orbit.
                            OOE,

                            Sir,

                            The thinking by the THOR people was correct in one aspect: if you want to do something with any degree of promptness on a global (i.e. planetary) basis, doing it from orbit is certainly the hot ticket. However, the KE component of THOR would not be relevant to the types of targets that the PGS people seem to have in mind.

                            Too, the hypersonic stuff strikes me as a solution looking for a problem.

                            I think the way to go on PGS would be to deploy "stealthy" UCAVs from a constellation of satellite aircraft carriers in much lower orbits than the THOR people had in mind. The low orbits would have several benefits. First, they would aid in prompt delivery. Secondly, they would make servicing the fleet easier. Also, they would prevent less of a threat to other Powers as they would be easier to observe and deter. Using a constellation of satellites would provide coverage of a global nature. If other Powers getty uppitty at a later date, another system could be eventually deployed in orbits they may find it difficult to operate in.

                            The UCAV component of such a PGS system would be a responsive, flexible, multi role platform capable of both the reconnisance and strike roles. The mission profile would essentially be thus: when intelligence comes in that warrants using the system, a UCAV is dropped from the appropriate carrier, re enters the atmosphere, falls to the operational area, sprouts wings and proceeds to fly on to the target. When it reaches the target, it can feed real time intelligence information to the decsion makers for final analysis. If everything turns out to be a go, the UCAV ceases its reconnisance role and becomes essentially a cruise missle, perhaps with a multi role warhead tailored to be effective against several possible targets.

                            The big advantage of using a UCAV rather than a dumb bomb or penetrator is not just the intelligence gathering capability. Such a machine could have enough loiter time to get there a little early and wait for the target or possibly dispense submuntions and then sniff around after the fact. Too, mission abort is a snap: fly off and self destruct.

                            Building orbitally deployed UCAVs and the associated carriers should not be too much of a problem. All of the technologies required are reasonably or completely mature and many components may already be on the shelf.

                            The ABM Treaty no longer applies but there may be some objections under the Outter Space Treaty but I have not delved into the matter to closely. IIRC, the latter treaty is more concerned with nuclear weapons in orbit and military activities on other planets.

                            Another PGS option with lower technical hurdles than space based systems or the hypersonic stuff might be to maintain a fleet of HALE UAV mother ships capable of deploying a small UCAV and just keep a few in the air 'round the clock over a bunch of the trouble spots. Again, here we have good coverage, good response time and the ability to do reconnisance and strike from a single platorm. Given the vast and growing U.S. experience with UAV operations, this is a relatively low cost, low risk proposition.

                            Anyway, if ya'll elect me Grand Ayatollah, I will pursue PGS and I won't be squeamish about putting conventional weapons in orbit :) .

                            Regards,

                            William
                            Last edited by Swift Sword; 05 Apr 11,, 14:20.
                            Pharoh was pimp but now he is dead. What are you going to do today?

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The original premis was how to distinquish a conventional ICBM strike versus a nuclear one. I postulated that only a THOR type system can make a conventional strike to be mistaken for a nuke. I was not arguing about the effectiveness of either system.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X