Prompt Global Strike
Images are sometimes not shown due to bandwidth/network limitations. Refreshing the page usually helps.
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
You are currently reading a thread in /k/ - Weapons
Precision guided conventional munitions delivered by intercontinental ballistic missile.
Awesome weapon, or awesome way to start world war three?
There are two problems.
ICBMs cost tens of millions of dollars per unit.
ICBM launches are a rather big deal.
Retarded
"Let's spend fucktarded amounts of money to deliver a small amount of conventional explosives"
Protip, the reason we use nukes on ICBMs is the yield/payload ratio for them is much larger
>>30505712
its awesome, but impractical. most cool weapons are
for what reason would you need to suddenly bomb a foreign location?
if you have operations in the area there's going or should be air support nearby
or artillery, or a missile ship
all of which probably cost less to use than an ICBM
also, how are other countries to know you're not sending off a nuclear ICBM?
>>30505779
Prompt Global Strike gives you the ability to put a conventional bomb downrange at a moment's notice. No need to wait for bombers to make the trip. It's only possible now that precision is good enough to ensure a hit.
It's worth the cost for those times where you really do need it promptly.
And it's a terrible idea because it looks exactly like a nuke launch.
>>30507010
>It's worth the cost for those times where you really do need it promptly.
there is literally no situation where this is worth the cost of maintaining a rocket fleet
>>30507010
>put a conventional bomb downrange at a moment's notice
you do know ICBMs aren't hit-scan weapons, right?
>>30505744
>>30505779
ICBMs benefit from economy of scale; the more they're used, the cheaper it becomes to use them. That being said, I doubt it would ever get to the point that they're cheaper than just sending a B-52 at something.
>>30507010
>And it's a terrible idea because it looks exactly like a nuke launch.
This right here.
Everytime you'll launch that thing unannounced, someone else will reach for their big red button.
>>30507162
>ICBMs benefit from economy of scale; the more they're used, the cheaper it becomes to use them.
Maybe if we're only talking about ALBM, SLBM, or mobile ICBM
each of which have their own issues
regardless, it's more costly than just using a Tomahawk or whatever
I can't think of a scenario where an icbm w/ a conventional warhead would be the best solution. Which is probably why it's not a thing.
>>30505712
>delivered by ICBM
Bad idea.
>>30507046
>there is literally no situation where this is worth the cost of maintaining a rocket fleet
The rocket fleet already exists. You're just swapping out the warheads on a few sub-launched nukes for conventional munitions.
>>30507118
>you do know ICBMs aren't hit-scan weapons, right?
ICBMs get there faster than bombers.
>>30507162
>>30507282
It's not about cheapness, it's about promptness. That's why it's not called Cheap Global Strike. You're paying for the privilege of not having to wait for a B-52 or a Tomahawk.
>>30507302
> Isis is launching a major offensive against an Iraqi Kurd stronghold. Bombers are an hour away. You can decide the battle in ten minutes with two glide bombs in the center of their line launched from a sub off the coast.
What they need is not bombs, but infantry dropships
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cf_-g3UWQ04
Something similar to this
Put the troops anywhere in the world in under an hour
>>30507384
That we've done that kind of shit before with tomahawks. Russia did that recently to isis targets with thier own ship launched missles.
>>30507386
The Marine Corps wants to do just that. Or they did 10 years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SUSTAIN_(military)
>>30507384
> in ten minutes with two glide bombs in the center of their line
What is this, WW1?
>>30507384
Or you could just call in artillery that takes a couple minutes to arrive.
>>30507336
>The rocket fleet already exists. You're just swapping out the warheads on a few sub-launched nukes for conventional munitions.
1. Missile maintenance can take days. Swapping warheads requires that ships be in port, and it puts sections of the nuclear arsenal out of commission while they're not equipped with nuclear warheads, meaning you would need to build and maintain additional rockets (or suffer loss of nuclear capability)
2. sub-launched missiles are not ICBMs. Launching rockets from submarines would required that the submarines be in range of the target, at which point you can use normal cruise missiles.
>It's not about cheapness, it's about promptness. That's why it's not called Cheap Global Strike. You're paying for the privilege of not having to wait for a B-52 or a Tomahawk.
there is no target on Earth which would necessitate this. North Korea and the entire middle East are in close proximity to blue airbases; you'd be better off spending money on some kind of constant bomber readiness effort.
the entire concept is a robbery scheme devised by defense contractors. It's complete nonsense.
>>30507433
eisenhower was a commie sympathizer
>>30505712
Terrible idea. That's why it was studied and rejected a long time ago.
>>30505712
>Awesome weapon, or awesome way to start world war three?
Awesome weapon.
We should scrap the Land based nukes we have and just use those silos for conventional precision Hit anywhere in the world in an hour badassery.
We would of course have to allow chinese and russian inspectors to say yes no more nukes. We have had decades of no first use stated policy and russia can open skies over any time they wait so bait and switch is not a valid concern(but vatnicks dont need validity to bitch)
>>30507433
>Missile maintenance can take days. Swapping warheads requires that ships be in port, and it puts sections of the nuclear arsenal out of commission while they're not equipped with nuclear warheads, meaning you would need to build and maintain additional rockets (or suffer loss of nuclear capability)
SLBMs and ICBMs are already under-warheaded to comply with arms reduction treaties. turning a few 3 warhead Trident missiles into 4 warhead Trident missiles would do little to diminish nuclear capability.
>sub-launched missiles are not ICBMs. Launching rockets from submarines would required that the submarines be in range of the target, at which point you can use normal cruise missiles.
Trident has a range of ~8000km and a time to target at that range of 15 to 20 minutes. Name a cruise missile that can do that.
>>30507769
DC-9 "Tom" Cruise Missile
>>30505712
>lets spend 50million dollars to kill an illiterate sand nigger
no
>>30505712
>Awesome weapon, or awesome way to start world war three?
It's this. The technical requirements of ballistic missile delivery means there's no way to distinguish between a conventional warhead and a nuclear warhead until it detonates. The strategic presumption is that a ballistic missile launch constitutes a nuclear strike, and it would be way too much to ask that everyone trust each other when we say "it's not a nuke, we swear."
>>30505712
How 'bout five meters long tungsten rods dropped from GEO by a forgotten SDI artifact?
>>30505712
It's cool and an interesting idea but pretty impractical.
>>30507433
>there is no target on Earth which would necessitate this.
Not entirely true. A number of strikes on terrorist leaders in Afghanistan were misses because of the time delay and even more had to be called off due to the time it took for munitions to arrive on target. It's about hitting targets of opportunity that are out of immediate reach of other assets.
>>30507384
>major offensive
>decide the battle in ten minutes with two glide bombs
>Bombers are an hour away
>>30508428
this, using an ICBM for a strike using a conventual warhead is like wasting a grenade on a single ant
>>30505712
Okay heres some poorly collected facts
LGM-30 Minuteman missiles are the current ICBM of choice for the US
They carry 3 W87 Warheads which are believed to be around 200-270kg (440-600lbs) each
which means it could carry a payload (If we were to just replace the warheads) of around 900kg.
The estimated accuracy is within 200m of the aimed point.
So it would really be rather ineffectual if it had only a single conventional warhead. It would be useless as a fuel air bomb (considering the BLU-82 is over 6800kg). Unless it was some form of thermite cluster munition you would have to spam 10-15 ICBMs (at around $7mil a pop)
>>30508599
>"Sergei, the capitalist pigs have launched a missile!"
>"Where is it heading to, Chekov?"
>"It seems to be heading towards Afghanistan."
>"Ignore it."
>>30508930
UGM-96 Tridents on the other hand have a Payload of up to 8 W76 warheads which weigh 164kg each (362 pounds) Giving a total payload of 1312kg (2,896lbs)
well it is a slightly higher payload, they are only accurate to within 380m, So with a conventional payload they would still be rather useless. and also let everybody know where your subs are hiding
Your much hated tomahawk has a payload of 450 kg (1000) lbs but is much more accurate (Cant find stats-citation needed).
Even in your emergency strike doctrine, you would almost be better with a 4 hellfires fired from a drone, or a b-52 sitting 1,000nm away dropping tomahawks.
>>30509042
Wrong in several areas.
W76 weighs ~95kg. This yield to weight ratio matches other warheads of the era.
http://russianforces.org/blog/2007/05/how_many_warheads.shtml
Trident 2 doesn't carry 8 W76s, it carries 8 W88 (475kt, ~350kg) warheads. It can carry 12 or 14 (sources differ) W76 warheads.
>>30509076
Like I said, poorly researched.
Mustve got my wires crossed with the w76 and w88.
What i was mainly saying is that the actual conventional payload would almost be laughably small, and therefore rather ineffectual as a tactical weapon considering (estimated ) accuracy.
But as a nuclear weapon that doesn't really matter, because if you miss by 100m, you're still glassing everything in the area
>>30505712
The only thing scarier than nuclear weapons is not having them while the Russians and Chinese have them.
so
> PGS =?= Non-nuclear nuclear deterrent
maybe?
