It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pentagon wants new AF Bomber!

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2006 @ 05:55 AM
link   
And what happens when you have to hit 3 targets? A single ICBM will be able to carry a single conventional warhead.




posted on May, 29 2006 @ 06:51 AM
link   
what about you use them for bunker busting? thats a very large bunker buster travelling how fast? Oh man that would be rough to be on the recieving end of that big bag boy!



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And what happens when you have to hit 3 targets? A single ICBM will be able to carry a single conventional warhead.


That’s easy, you launch three for the mission and announce two are for target practice over the pacific range.


More information regarding the Pentagon’s desire for a non-nuclear ICBM/SLBM.


Pentagon seeking non-nuclear submarine missile:

The Pentagon is pressing Congress to approve the development of a new weapon that would enable the United States to carry out non-nuclear missile strikes against distant targets within an hour, The New York Times reported in its Monday edition.

The Pentagon plan calls for deploying a non-nuclear version of the submarine-launched Trident II missile that could be used to attack terrorist camps, enemy missile sites, suspected caches of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons and other potentially urgent threats, the report said.

If fielded, it would be the only non-nuclear weapon designed for rapid strikes against targets thousands of miles away and would add to the president's options when considering a pre-emptive attack, The Times pointed out.

General James Cartwright, head of the US Strategic Command, said the system would enhance the Pentagon's ability to "pre-empt conventionally" and precisely while limiting the "collateral damage," the paper reported.

Link



posted on May, 29 2006 @ 09:40 PM
link   
Well if you're a defense contractor looking for the most expensive possible method to deliver some a couple tons of HE within 90 meters of a given target (that's Trident's CEP), I guess this is it. Beyond that I'm not sure it's such a great idea...

Now if it had terminal radar guidance like the Pershing II, I can see it being of some use. But still absurdly expensive.

[edit on 5/29/06 by xmotex]



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Well if you're a defense contractor looking for the most expensive possible method to deliver some a couple tons of HE within 90 meters of a given target (that's Trident's CEP), I guess this is it.
[edit on 5/29/06 by xmotex]


Good Point, I didn't even think of that! Ballistic Missiles are by definition not very accurate. They have a Circular Error Probability because of how they are design. ICBM's by definition do not have terminal guidance, that what makes them ballistic.

The principle of a ballisic missile is simular to lobbing a rock at some one. During the "boost" phase, the missile uses a partial guidance to set a trajectory. When they enter midcourse, the engine and guidance system shut down as the missile enters a ballistic flight path. The warhead(s) are then deployed. These warheads then free fall to the target, simlar to how a World War 2 bomb was dropped. More often then not, the warhead doesn't actually hit the target, but lands nearby.

Remember that the Reason ICBM's are so powerful as a deturrent is because they usually have Nuclear Warheads. If you miss by 6 yards with a large Nuclear warhead, it makes no difference, the target is still in the blast zone. If you miss by 6 yards with a 2'000 Lbs. bomb, you get a loud bang and a target with no damage. With a conventional warhead, an ICBM is of almost no real strategic use.

Historical Note: The first Ballistic Missile, the German V-2 was built as a terror weapon. It was used more or less to wage psychological warfare against England. Even the Nazis admitted the weapon was of very little strategic vaule because it lacked the accurcy to hit a spacific Target. Ballistic Missiles were dropped after the war until large, high yeild Nuclear warheads came about, making the ballisitc missile strategically useful as a weapon.

Tim



posted on May, 31 2006 @ 11:02 AM
link   
I’m sure they would place the conventional warhead in a maneuverable guided capsule to improve CEP, 90M is too great a CEP for a conventional warhead to be effective unless you launch multiple missiles at one target. As mentioned above the Pershing II had a similar reentry vehicle which acheived a relativly low CEP, with the guidance technology available today achieving a small CEP should be possible. By the way the Pershing II had a CEP of approximately 30-50M depending on the range. And Ghost the 2000 LB JDAM has a blast area of 82 Ft and a CEP of about 3M. A Trident II SLBM has a payload of about 6000LB.


The MGM-31C reentry vehicle housed a single variable yield (5-50 kT) W-85 thermonuclear warhead. With its Singer Kearfott inertial guidance system, and the Goodyear Aerospace active radar terminal guidance unit in the warhead, the MGM-31C achieved an accuracy of about 30 m (100 ft) CEP at a range of up to 1770 km (1100 miles).

Link



The world's most accurate ballistic missile is probably the Pershing II IRBM, now destroyed as part of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty. Using a sophisticated terminal adjustment technique, the Pershing II is rumored to have a CEP of approximately 50 meters.

Link



Related Sources
Link 1
Link 2


[edit on 31-5-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I’m sure they would place the conventional warhead in a maneuverable guided capsule to improve CEP, 90M is too great a CEP for a conventional warhead to be effective unless you launch multiple missiles at one target.


WestPoint23,

You 've completely missed the point! If it is guided during the terminal phase of flight, IT IS NOT A BALLISTIC MISSILE! By definition Ballistic Missile is unguided during the terminal phase.

You might want to check Wikipeia before we continue this discussion. Ballistic Missle

Humor me, Please Read It!


Tim



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 08:01 AM
link   
Ghost it can have terminal guidance and it can maneuver in the terminal phase while still being considered a ballistic missile. The Pershing II was considered a ballistic missile and so is the Topol-M which maneuvers in the terminal phase. Besides, I’m not really concerned with how you choose to classify it, as long as it performs as promised everything else comes second.



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 08:01 AM
link   
EDIT: Double Post

[edit on 1-6-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jun, 1 2006 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Ghost it can have terminal guidance and it can maneuver in the terminal phase while still being considered a ballistic missile.


So, what makes it a Ballistic Missile? I was going by the dictonary befinition, which would suggest that it's unguided.

Tim



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join