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.

 

Is it bad idea to turn Trident missiles into conventional weaponry?

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 03:09 AM
link   
How many sattelites do you see coming from missile silos or submarines?




posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
How many sattelites do you see coming from missile silos or submarines?


Not many, I believe the Russians have launched a satellite from a SSBN though. Just because a rocket isn't launched from a silo or sub doesn't mean that China and Russia looks at it any less carefully.

Besides as I said before, if a warhead did move towards Russia or China they'd have plenty of time to use their nuclear forces. Also if it were just a few warheads, which is what most scenarios imply, it's hardly going to knock out there overwhelming nuclear deterrance is it ?



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 04:05 AM
link   
Mad Scientist
You do know that before normal rocket launches USA, Russia and China do warn each others well before on where, when and what will be launched...?
Incase of Time sensitive strike with conventional Tridents this wouldn't be possible and the launch would look like a supprise attack to anyone monitoring..



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by northwolf
Mad Scientist
You do know that before normal rocket launches USA, Russia and China do warn each others well before on where, when and what will be launched...?
Incase of Time sensitive strike with conventional Tridents this wouldn't be possible and the launch would look like a supprise attack to anyone monitoring..


The point being what, they aren't going to attack China or Russia. They could quite easily inform both countries as to what's happening. Also launching 1 0r 2 missiles does not constitute a first strike especially when both countries possess massive retalitory capability.
Besides it's highly doubtful that Russia or CHina would even detect a launch from a submarine.



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 04:53 AM
link   
OMG you have to be kidding. Do you have any idea the kind of NOISE an SLBM creates? Why do you think that an SSBN launches and runs as fast as they can? ANYTHING with sonar can hear an SLBM launch.



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
OMG you have to be kidding. Do you have any idea the kind of NOISE an SLBM creates? Why do you think that an SSBN launches and runs as fast as they can? ANYTHING with sonar can hear an SLBM launch.


LOL, I wasn't aware that every country had full sonar coverage of the ocean ? Actually no countries do
Your statement is very broad and wrong, it all depends where the sub launches it's missiles and even more so what enemy assets are in the area. The Russians can't really track SSBN's and the Chinese don't have the capability to.
So, do you hvae any correct arguments ? As you can see your previous statements haven't been entirely truthful either.



[edit on 22-1-2006 by mad scientist]



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 05:26 AM
link   
Of course. Because subs can launch missiles and torpedoes and everything else without making any noise at all, and sonar won't detect it, and sattelites won't detect an SLBM launch, and neither will radars designed to look for them. Whatever.



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Of course. Because subs can launch missiles and torpedoes and everything else without making any noise at all, and sonar won't detect it, and sattelites won't detect an SLBM launch, and neither will radars designed to look for them. Whatever.


Ahem
Whereabouts are these sonars you talk about ? IF a warhead isn't heading to RUssia or China why would they detect it, unless it was close to their borders ? Russia and China don't have satellites covering the entire ocean now do they
Like I said beofre your broad statements are wrong, enough said.



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 05:55 AM
link   
How do you think a missile leaves the submarine? magic? There's a HUGE jet of compressed air that pushes it out of the submarine. Other submarines, destroyers, and other ships all have sonar. Anything within a couple of hundred miles is going to hear that compressed air push the missile out of the submarine.


compressed air = noise. noise = detection. How do you think other subs hear a torpedo launch? compressed air pushing the torpedo out of the sub.



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 06:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
How do you think a missile leaves the submarine? magic? There's a HUGE jet of compressed air that pushes it out of the submarine. Other submarines, destroyers, and other ships all have sonar. Anything within a couple of hundred miles is going to hear that compressed air push the missile out of the submarine.


Ahem and how large are the oceans ? So your saying that the Russians have every part of the ocean covered by sonar. I'd be surprised if they could cover any more than 10% of the Pacific. So I ask again, where are these sonars ? You seem to think you know Russian fleet deployments.


compressed air = noise. noise = detection. How do you think other subs hear a torpedo launch? compressed air pushing the torpedo out of the sub.


Whoa your knowlege is astounding
So you're assuming the Russians have a naval unit near every US submarine ?



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Sorry but have to go with Zaphod58 with this one.The state of the Russian/China warning systems does not give me confidence they would accurately know a conventional ICBM launch is not going to be for them.
Here is a brief bit i found about the Norwegian 1995 missile confusion :

"Jan.95: Norwegian Meteorological Missile.

On 25 January, 1995, the Russian early warning radars detected an
unexpected missile launch near Spitzbergen. The estimated flight time
to Moscow was 5 minutes. The Russian President, the Defence Minister
and the Chief of Staff were informed. The early warning and the control
and command systems switched to combat mode. Within 5 minutes, the
radars determined that the missile's impact point would be outside the
Russian borders.

The missile was carrying instruments for scientific measurements. On 16
January Norway had notified 35 countries including Russia that the
launch was planned. Information had apparently reached the Russian
Defense Ministry, but failed to reach the on-duty personnel of the early
warning system."

And that happened with a launch warning well in advance....



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 07:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by mad scientist
I think conventional armed Tridents wouldn't be such a bad idea. Everyone talks about ooooh, what about Russia and China. Well unless you're attacking them what difference does it make, they aren't going to do anything if the warheads aren't coming towards them. So what's the problem ?

As the article I posted states above, conventionally armeds tridents offer far greater performance at destroying buried targets than any ' bunker buster ' the US or western powers currently field.

A slow lumbering Tomahawk makes a poor substitute.

True, nothing quite like plummeting in from near orbit to put large and deep holes in the ground.

Personally, I still think we need 1,000 Kg iron blocks in orbit with secure comms, and a retro rocket. It'd be the ultimate take on the cartoon tactic of dropping an anvil on someone's head!



posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Mr. Travellar meet “Rods from God”, the closest thing to an anvil dropping out of nowhere.


[edit on 22-1-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 03:13 AM
link   
I don't want to drop anvils from out of nowhere, I want to drop them from orbit!
The real challenge is aiming them. not that there won't be enough collateral damage, mind you.


I have to agree with Mad Scientist. There's plenty of ocean for a Ballistic missile to be launched at many potential adversaries without Russia or China caring enough about that part of the world to even bother looking. However, unless we are attacking say, Madagascar or New Zealand, That missile will eventually climb high enough that they can see it. It will not be challenging though to determine that it isn't heading thier way. If it is, then apparently we're at war already, and the worst case scenarios mentioned are already in full effect prior to launch.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 03:18 AM
link   
As soon as it's launched they'll know. Even if they aren't actively looking for an SSBN, they ARE GOING TO HEAR THE LAUNCH. A blue whale can be heard over 1000 miles away. An air slug designed to throw something the size of a Trident from 50 feet underwater, to airborne is going to make a HUGE noise. Any sub, destroyer, or anything else with sonar within several hundred miles is gonna hear it. Sure they might not be able to say "That was an SSBN, and it's right there!" and pinpoint its location, but they're gonna be able to say "That was an SLBM launch."

[edit on 1/23/2006 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 05:26 AM
link   
^^^ Even if the Russians and the Chinese had their ships evenly disperesed throughout the worlds oceans ( which obviously they don't ), they still wouldn't have enough ships to cover even 10% of the ocean with your several hundred mile radius ( in your words ) they can cover.
How many ships for example would the CHinese and Russians have in the Indian Ocean, not many at all.



posted on Jan, 23 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   
It doesn't matter if they can detect the launch, (which, with most potential launch locations, they won't), they WILL detect the missile.

Come to think of it though, international crisises tend to be a month or two in the buildup, so it's entirely likely Russia at the least would have an asset in the area just to watch things. Which just means they'd have an earlier start time to begin tracking such a device (bad idea though I strill think it is), and determine it isn't coming thier way.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 04:03 PM
link   
No disrespect, but is anyone on this thread an actual or former D5 Missile Technician, Strategic Weapons Officer, Assistant Weapons Officer, XO or CO?

I didn't want to start shooting my mouth off if any of you guys actually knew what you were talking about.


MT2 (SS)
Strategic Fire Control Division
USS Kentucky (Gold) / USS Alaska (Blue)
1999-2004



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 04:11 PM
link   
I'm also cross-qualified as a BQQ-6 broadband operator and have sat in the chair for the TB-16 and 23. Whoever said that a blue whale can be heard 1000 miles away is retarded.

The noise from a tactical-mode launch is massive, but not as massive as a 6000-degree flame would be to an infared-equipped satellite.

Heads-up for counter-battery fire.

Peace.



posted on Feb, 14 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   
Any missile launch will trigger the infrared sensors on early warning satellites. Scuds were detectable from space and Patriots were forwarned and downlinked in both Gulf wars.
Now a acoustic detection is another matter. SOUSUS could probably pick it up hundreds of miles out, and any ASW asset in the region would pick up the launch acoustically within a hundred miles or so.
IR sensors are the main give away though. It has been speculated that a SLBM sub would have to "ripple fire" or else the launch area would be targeted with quickly retargatable ICBMs. Minuteman could do this now. Counterforce blows would follow.
Of course anyone who really knows for sure first hand can't talk about such obviously classified material. All this is speculation on what is pubilcally available.

[edit on 14-2-2006 by Sandman11]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join