Posted on 01/15/2020 11:08:45 PM PST by knighthawk
Designing a ship around a weapon that doesn’t exist. I guess the corrupt decision makers didn’t learn anything from the last destroyer fiasco along those lines.
Couple of thoughts on this (only half-baked so you get what you pay for...).
The mission is to put ordnance on target, in a hurry. There may not always be Air Force assets within range, or Navy assets (carriers, ships/subs with cruise missiles, etc.) Hence the notion of conventionally armed MRBM/IRBM/ICBMs.
First thought was to re-arm SSBNs with missiles equipped with conventional warheads. That could/should work but... Why move away from it or de-emphasize it? Perhaps the Navy is worried about "near peer" players. Used to be our sonar was so good and adversary's subs were so noisy that a US SSBN would know if anyone was close enough to matter. As potential enemy subs have gotten quieter, they can now be closer to our subs without our SSBNs knowing. Launching a SLBM is a noisy affair and will attract attention. Having enemies potentially closer makes this a much more risky proposition. That may be a risk you're willing to take in something as all-in as a nuclear conflict. However, we may not want to accept that risk to a strategic asset for a regional conflict or target of opportunity.
Developing a surface ship based system that can fire MRBM/IRBM/ICBM ranged weapons increases our strategic options. Once we have the delivery system worked out, who says the warheads have to remain conventional? We do this right, they could go nuclear. This is in line with the Reagan strategy from the 1980s - make your opponent's job so difficult they can't expend the resources to counter it.
Who says the warheads have to come back down? Once you develop a vessel/launch system/vehicle (missile) that's a potent platform for development. Sure, we could put a conventional warhead on there. We could put a nuclear warhead on there. Or we could even put an exo-atmospheric kill vehicle on there and have an even more potent missile defense and/or anti-satellite system. Once you have the fundamental capabilities, it can act as a springboard for a whole family of things.
Speaking of development, this program makes an excellent excuse to (continue?) development of some very accurate re-entry vehicles. When you're sending a few hunderd kT of nuclear bang with air-burst fusing, pinpoint accuracy isn't a requirement. But if you're only sending a couple hundred lbs of HE and a hardened penetrator you've got to get it right. This is basically saying the RV would be a hypersonic maneuvering weapon since it would need to adjust aimpoint on the way in. This may be the Navy's way of saying they want in on this tech development.
Speaking of development - even bigger picture - the fight is moving upstairs. We (humans) had some notion of not militarizing space. Lofty goal (pun intended) but the reality is the fight is moving upstairs. We have a Space Force. We have all kinds of assets in space, so do our adversaries. We have weapons that can reach into space, so do our adversaries. In general, programs and projects that increase our presence-in, knowledge-of, and ability to influence space are a good thing.
Let’s hope the navy ensures there are no captain Jack Rippers in command.
Some years ago there were supposedly kinetic energy weapons being developed. These would use tungsten rods dropped from orbit or from an ICBM that would hit their target at speeds of 17,000 mph and pack a near nuclear bomb punch. That would seem to be an ideal warhead for these new missiles.
The why bother putting it on a boat?
All well & good, but you’re talking about a large rocket fitting into a pre-existing 15,000-ton displacement vessel. That’s no small feat of engineering — especially if you’re going to put it in the ICBM class (say 8 - 9,000 mile range). Anything less than that range would mean that the ship would have to be in the same region as the target group.
Not only do you need the ability to launch that weight in the first place, if it’s in orbit it would require maneuvering engines and a tremendously high mass platform to effectively launch and accurately target from space
This stuff makes great science fiction but the physics are a real problem
The Russians already have Hypersonic missiles that travel at 20 times the speed of sound,President Trump mentioned last week we have them in production,whatever that means,so a missle that takes an hour won’t be of much use
I think in the past, the issue has been that its impossible to tell a nuclear ballistic missile from a conventional ballistic missile, so there is/was concern we could wind up starting a nuclear war when that wasnt the intent.
I think since that time, some arms treaties have expired or been let go, and also the threat environment is different. How the CONOP for such a system works without accidentally igniting a nuclear exchange with a competitor that may not even be the target of the conventional attack is something that would have to be hashed out.
That’s a major issue. Also, an ICBM is a pretty expensive delivery system just to deliver a conventional warhead.
I was thinking more of the plans for hypersonic, intercontinental-ranged cruise missiles. While those wouldn’t be mistaken for nuclear ICBMs, they would be considered destabilizing for other, obvious reasons, especially right after we’ve withdrawn from the INF Treaty.
Of course, for all the noise they make about us, the Russians and Chinese don’t seem to be too worried about “destabilization” when developing their own weapons.
ARB is proven. I’d say more but don’t need any visitors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.