I thought we were banning long range ballistic missiles and the technology for them as starting assets. They make no sense at all without nuclear warheads, no one is going to fire off a 30 million dollar missile to deliver maybe 2-3 tons of HE. Also if anyone has starting ICBM technology, by default they already have a large space booster that can loft significant sized satellites, which would mean space should already be heavily developed. MRBMs are more reasonable, small enough to have conventional-chemical weapons applications and while they can place very small payloads in orbit, they can’t support a proper space program, just basic research.Stas Bush wrote: P.S. Also, let it be known that I'm eagerly awaiting Marina's ideas on the ICBM/rocketry situation. Are ICBMs banned? If nations are known to have standoffs (me vs. Shroomania and other Empires (Japanistan, Tian Xia), Shepistan vs. Old Dominion), can they have at least up to 1980s ICBM tech? 1960s?
No the point of SSBNs is to be highly survivable in the event of an enemy first strike with nuclear weapons. For any given level of missile technology SLBMs will be less accurate then ICBMs. In real life SLBMs are now so accurate that the difference doesn’t matter (say 150 meter vs. 100 meter CEP), but that’s only because of super advanced features like a radar mapping system on Trident II warheads.
And could one please clarify on SSBN ban - there are precise BNs for subs after all, arent there? Wasn't one of SSBN main purpose to be more precise than ICBM? If ICBMs are unlikely but not banned, SSBN are likewise possible as an attempt to make standoff weapons at least somewhat useful in tactical sense.
Japanistan has a couple diesel SSBs, but each one only carries 2-3 SCUD type missiles which are cost effective for conventional and chemical weapons strikes. SSBNs are far too expensive to make any real sense for conventional/chemical strikes, an SSGN with cruise missiles would be much more useful.
SM-3 is hit to kill with a tiny detaching infrared guided interceptor, it is worthless against anything but a ballistic missile at high altitude. By the time you’re done changing it you’d have a whole new missile.SiegeTank wrote:Question for those who are more knowledgeable about military gear: would it be possible to convert the RIM-161 Standard Missile 3 that I employ on my destroyers etc. into an anti-shipping missile, preferably one carried by aircraft? Or is that a preposterous idea that I should be ridiculed for even proposing?
SM-2 is a way more logical basis for development (Standard SM-1 was converted to function as ARM in Vietnam), but it still wouldn’t be that great because the warhead is small and the flight profile would have to be suboptimal (neither very high nor very low). In real life SM-2 can in used as an anti ship weapon, but only out to the horizon because its semi active guided. An anti ship weapon would need active radar guidance.