Pentagon Budget: poll

[Chmee]

Yes, a $30 million missile shot is a damned expensive way to deliver high explosives ... but then if you do it even 10 times a year it's a helluva lot cheaper than deploying an entire new strategic platform.

30 million. Try 70 million, without accounting for the cost of the warhead and its reentry vehicle, all thrown down the shitter.

Unless you make some massive breakthrough in ICBM guidance that trillions of dollars spent during the cold war couldn't, you'll have a CEP of perhaps 90 meters at the absolute best, and several hundred is more likely. That's comparable to the accuracy of a high level run with unguided bombs by an F-16 or F-15E. Only when an F-16 or F-15E attacks like that, they drop four to eight bombs minimal, and several planes are probably in the mission. Because a 90-meter CEP will not let a single 2000 pound class warhead (which is the best a conventional ICBM is likely to have) accomplish jack shit. It will be worthless against any form of hard target, the only thing, which could possibul, justify the cost, and even most soft targets are easily going to easily endure it, provided you even get a hit within the CEP, which is only a 50% chance.

So basically you've created a one-use weapon, which costs as much as over ninety new built Tomahawk missiles, is incapable of destroying worthwhile targets, and the use of which will set off nuclear attack warning systems in China and Russia. What a great investment that would be.

Understandably there is not a lot of public literature on this research, but the goal is most certainly not 90-meter accuracy ... the goal is accuracy on the same level as a Tomahawk, taking advantage of a platform that can't be shot down by local air defenses (presuming a fairly high quality air defense, I'm not under the illusion you're going to see Osama's boys bring down a cruise missile with lucky AK shots).

[Petrosjko]

*shrug* no. Fortifying a MEU?

Actually, I believe this was supposed to be on a smaller scale than that. Basically creating small independent groups that could do quick in and out work, with an eye toward sneaking up on terrorist bases and suchlike. It was a mixture of hovercraft and helo insertion, fire support from the tin cans offshore and possibly from a carrier further out. It looked rather promising.

It was an article in an Oklahoma newspaper, possibly The Daily Oklahoman, that was discussing the experimentation they were doing, and I've not seen any references since. (Admittedly, I haven't really looked.)

[Sea Skimmer]

Understandably there is not a lot of public literature on this research, but the goal is most certainly not 90-meter accuracy ... the goal is accuracy on the same level as a Tomahawk, taking advantage of a platform that can't be shot down by local air defenses

I'll believe point accuracy from an SLBM or ICBM, without the warhead slowing down so much it can be knocked our of the sky by an SA-2, when I see it. People have been claiming that such a capability is right around the corner for about twenty years. Course, even with point point accuracy, it is still a 70 million dollar weapon which will set off nuclear alarm bells every time its used, making every nuclear nation in the world paranoid as shit.

(presuming a fairly high quality air defense, I'm not under the illusion you're going to see Osama's boys bring down a cruise missile with lucky AK shots).

Actually that's quite possibul in daylight, and many Tomahawks have fallen prey to optically aimed machine guns and light cannon. . Tomahawk however is quite cheep compared to the costs of what it can and is normally used to destroy, which is a vast array of targets. We can launch swarms of them and accept that some will malfunction and many will be shot down and we will still accomplish the mission.

Your weapon fails to be either flexible or cost effective and can be easily seen coming. It's not a procurement budget winning combination of traits, or one that will win many R&D dollars for that matter.

[Chmee]

Your weapon fails to be either flexible or cost effective and can be easily seen coming.

By who, half a dozen advanced military powers? If you launch from the middle of the Atlantic, the only people who are going to know about it are nations with advanced orbital radar tracking systems.

For good or ill, the R&D money is already being spent. I'm equally a skeptic on the ultimate achievability of these accuracy goals, I'd hate to see us follow the missile defense model and buy a bunch of them before we even get it working, that's something we seem to agree on.

[Petrosjko]

By who, half a dozen advanced military powers? If you launch from the middle of the Atlantic, the only people who are going to know about it are nations with advanced orbital radar tracking systems.

A half dozen military powers who will go on high alert in a very noticeable fashion, tipping off the rest of the world to the fact that Something is Up.

[Chmee]

By who, half a dozen advanced military powers? If you launch from the middle of the Atlantic, the only people who are going to know about it are nations with advanced orbital radar tracking systems.

A half dozen military powers who will go on high alert in a very noticeable fashion, tipping off the rest of the world to the fact that Something is Up.

You think People's Air Defense in Beijing (or whatever the hell it's called) gives a shit if Osama's little pals lose a hardened bunker? They barely tell *each other* what's going on, there's very little reason to think they're going to share that kind of intel. That would only reveal more about their detection capabilites to us. In the short flight time of an SLBM, I have a very hard time believing that an encampment in the mountains of Pakistan is going to get the word that the Russians have raised their alert status.

[Sea Skimmer]

By who, half a dozen advanced military powers? If you launch from the middle of the Atlantic, the only people who are going to know about it are nations with advanced orbital radar tracking systems.

And all the ones with 1950's ground based radars. Their happen to be alot of nations with those right now.

For good or ill, the R&D money is already being spent.

Real money isn't involved until they a prototyping a system and begin doing test launches, dozens of which would probably be necessary. That money isn't going to be spent. The US military already has more rapid reaction long-range weapons systems and craft on the budget table then it can fund, and a manned sub orbital bomber or hypersonic cruise missile represents a far more attractive weapon then a conventional SLBM.

[Petrosjko]

You think People's Air Defense in Beijing (or whatever the hell it's called) gives a shit if Osama's little pals lose a hardened bunker? They barely tell *each other* what's going on, there's very little reason to think they're going to share that kind of intel. That would only reveal more about their detection capabilites to us. In the short flight time of an SLBM, I have a very hard time believing that an encampment in the mountains of Pakistan is going to get the word that the Russians have raised their alert status.

Oh please.

First of all, the PRC is going to get excited because a possible nuclear weapon is ascending into the atmosphere, and where it's going to land nobody knows. They're going to go on alert in a very overt fashion, as will the Russians and everybody else in the aforementioned club of nations what watch the sky. For fuck's sake, nobody besides us is gonna know initially who is even doing the launching.

Now, odds are that no, word won't reach a bunch of tents in the hills of Pakistan before your missile lands. But you can damn betcha that if your target is say North Korea, word will reach them when the Chinese start going apeshit, and they correspondingly will go apeshit themselves.

Second of all, remember my previous reference to our record on decap strikes? Are you really wanting to bet that much money on landing the shot?

Frankly, with your previously stated qualms about this, I don't see why you're still defending the logic of it. It's demonstrably a crackpot idea for a variety of reasons.

[Chmee]

And all the ones with 1950's ground based radars. Their happen to be alot of nations with those right now.

For good or ill, the R&D money is already being spent.

Real money isn't involved until they a prototyping a system and begin doing test launches, dozens of which would probably be necessary. That money isn't going to be spent. The US military already has more rapid reaction long-range weapons systems and craft on the budget table then it can fund, and a manned sub orbital bomber or hypersonic cruise missile represents a far more attractive weapon then a conventional SLBM.

Those 50's radars aren't going to spot a launch 2500 miles away ... how much warning time is that going to give anybody who's actually the target (unless the radar site itself is the target)?

Hypersonic cruise missile is something they'll probably buy for sure ... a new suborb bomber sounds far too expensive, but who can say, they love blowing my money on new toys.

As an aside, the reading this thread prompted me to do led to some articles about the TACTOM upgrade program for TLAM cruise missiles ..... in-flight retargeting, battlefield loitering while waiting for targets, satellite backlinking for Battle Damage Assessment .... I can't argue with the value we continue to get out of that system.

[Chmee]

Oh please.

First of all, the PRC is going to get excited because a possible nuclear weapon is ascending into the atmosphere, and where it's going to land nobody knows. They're going to go on alert in a very overt fashion, as will the Russians and everybody else in the aforementioned club of nations what watch the sky. For fuck's sake, nobody besides us is gonna know initially who is even doing the launching.

Now, odds are that no, word won't reach a bunch of tents in the hills of Pakistan before your missile lands. But you can damn betcha that if your target is say North Korea, word will reach them when the Chinese start going apeshit, and they correspondingly will go apeshit themselves.

Frankly, with your previously stated qualms about this, I don't see why you're still defending the logic of it. It's demonstrably a crackpot idea for a variety of reasons.

Oh you're welcome.

No, I don't see the info flow between even the Chinese and NK's fast enough to do them much good in the short flight time. Secondly, nobody would advocate a system like this as appropriate for every target and every scenario. I don't know how to answer an extremely vague 'what if' about an attack on North Korea. What are we attacking and why?

I know that people have made some entirely speculative claims about consequences in this thread, but where I come from that isn't 'demonstrating' anything, it's just making an argument. To the extent people can do that calmly, I respect it. But nobody with any viewpoint in this thread (myself included) has 'proven' anything, they've just expressed their very personal viewpoints. I find them interesting, but they are ultimately just speculation.

[Petrosjko]

Oh you're welcome.

No, I don't see the info flow between even the Chinese and NK's fast enough to do them much good in the short flight time. Secondly, nobody would advocate a system like this as appropriate for every target and every scenario. I don't know how to answer an extremely vague 'what if' about an attack on North Korea. What are we attacking and why?

I know that people have made some entirely speculative claims about consequences in this thread, but where I come from that isn't 'demonstrating' anything, it's just making an argument. To the extent people can do that calmly, I respect it. But nobody with any viewpoint in this thread (myself included) has 'proven' anything, they've just expressed their very personal viewpoints. I find them interesting, but they are ultimately just speculation.

Chmee, I do believe you'll find that I'm one of the gentler debaters around here. One thing that does not fly around these parts is the style over substance fallacy, and usage of profanity to punctuate points is something of a high art on this board. I'm quite goddamned calm, though a tad bit motherfucking exasperated, thank you.

The counterarguments you've received are from people who have respectable knowledge of the procedures, tactics, and equipment involved in this discussion.

Then there's Shep, who worships at the altar of the almighty atom and loves each and every ICBM in the American arsenal as if they were his own children. I wouldn't be surprised if he's named them all, too.

Proof can't be offered unless the event occurs, but reasonable assumptions can be made based on past events, standing procedures and so on. So far, your argument has ranged from "I don't think it'll be a problem" to "Even if they do get upset, they won't do anything about it", without really offering any evidence to support your supposition.

There are reasonable assumptions made from evidence and there are WAGs based on wishful thinking, and thus far you've been doing the latter. As I said before, this is a crackpot idea. It's not cost effective, it's unlikely to be reliable both for reasons of both technical and intelligence limitations, and it'll piss off half the world were we to implement it.

[Sea Skimmer]

Those 50's radars aren't going to spot a launch 2500 miles away ... how much warning time is that going to give anybody who's actually the target (unless the radar site itself is the target)?

You could prouabbly get at least five minutes, which is enough to start giving orders. And since C4i bunkers are about the only target such a missile might be worth shooting at, that's not good.

Hypersonic cruise missile is something they'll probably buy for sure ... a new suborb bomber sounds far too expensive, but who can say, they love blowing my money on new toys.

A suborbital bomber wouldn't be cheep. But it wouldn't take much use before it proved cheeper then shooting off 70 million dollar missiles, and it combinds all the speed and range abilities of an ICBM with all the fexlability of a manned bomber.

As an aside, the reading this thread prompted me to do led to some articles about the TACTOM upgrade program for TLAM cruise missiles ..... in-flight retargeting, battlefield loitering while waiting for targets, satellite backlinking for Battle Damage Assessment .... I can't argue with the value we continue to get out of that system.

Tactical Tomahawk is in most ways a fresh start on the weapon, rather then the progressive upgrades we've been building in before.

[Chmee]

There are reasonable assumptions made from evidence and there are WAGs based on wishful thinking, and thus far you've been doing the latter.

Entirely a matter of perspective, I might think the reverse and be just as justified in the viewpoint. Ultimately I don't think we really disagree that widely. From the political standpoint, I think it would be a destabilizing weapon to deploy and utilize. But we're already in the midst of building and deploying just as destabilizing a system, at tremendous cost, and we don't even know if it works ... so I can hardly discount the willingness of the politicians to go right ahead with such a deployment despite the political consequences.

On the technical side, everything said on every side has simply been speculation in the absence of a lot of facts. Where I've seen arguments that seem unfounded based on my experience and understand, then I've said so, and hopefully in a manner that respects the viewpoint of the other person.

Profanity has its place, but in most discussions about interesting issues, it's usually a tactic that only serves to weaken the persuasiveness of the person making the argument, not enhance it. I mean, usually it's just not worth the fucking trouble.

[Petrosjko]

Entirely a matter of perspective, I might think the reverse and be just as justified in the viewpoint. Ultimately I don't think we really disagree that widely. From the political standpoint, I think it would be a destabilizing weapon to deploy and utilize. But we're already in the midst of building and deploying just as destabilizing a system, at tremendous cost, and we don't even know if it works ... so I can hardly discount the willingness of the politicians to go right ahead with such a deployment despite the political consequences.

On the technical side, everything said on every side has simply been speculation in the absence of a lot of facts. Where I've seen arguments that seem unfounded based on my experience and understand, then I've said so, and hopefully in a manner that respects the viewpoint of the other person.

Profanity has its place, but in most discussions about interesting issues, it's usually a tactic that only serves to weaken the persuasiveness of the person making the argument, not enhance it. I mean, usually it's just not worth the fucking trouble.

Sea Skimmer's comment that ICBM/SLBMs don't have the required accuracy and promises of refining that accuracy have proven false in the past is speculation?

Shep and Bean's commentary on the expenses was speculation?

Statements about how nations carefully announce their tests of ballistic missiles so as to not provoke overreaction in response was speculation?

The facts have consistantly not been on your side in this. It's evidently untenable from a technical standpoint, and you yourself admit that it's bad news on the political scene. Furthermore, it's exactly counter to your thesis that we need more cost-effective weaponry.

On the profanity issue- it's not a tactic for me. I don't view these discussions from a tactical standpoint, because as far as I'm concerned when I enter a discussion like this, I'll either prove my point, or learn new information in having my point disproven. I could care less about 'winning' or 'losing'. So my profanity flows from the heart, pitiful black marble that it is sitting in a jar on my desk here. In this matter, it has come from the fact that you are arguing the case of a badly flawed concept that deserves to be circular-filed at the earliest opportunity.

[Chmee]

Ok, fair enough Petro, your points deserve direct responses. Then I'll try to quit beating this particular horse's corpse because the discussion doesn't seem to be producing much.

Sea Skimmer's comment that ICBM/SLBMs don't have the required accuracy and promises of refining that accuracy have proven false in the past is speculation?

No, but it's speculation to make conclusive statements about the result of future research. Nor did it seem directly on-topic, since the fact is this technology IS being researched, and I was discussing the ramifications of actually succeeding at this research and deciding to deploy operational systems. I'm always a skeptic about big performance improvement promises in any system ... "show me" is a fine attitude to take about such promises and I agree with Skimmer on that.

Shep and Bean's commentary on the expenses was speculation?

Mostly, yeah. If we're talking expenses vis-a-vis other systems choices, and the cost-benefit analysis of choosing a completely new system development (say, manned supercruise bombers) vs. updating a system that's already paid for ... I would say that any conclusive comments about cost are extremely speculative at this point.

Statements about how nations carefully announce their tests of ballistic missiles so as to not provoke overreaction in response was speculation?

This is the area where I've been in greatest agreement with everyone, so I'm not sure I see why it's being argued. Over and over again I've said that it's potentially very destabilizing, but I think the political leadership making these decisions is paying less and less value on multilateral self-restraint in deploying destabilizing systems or changing strategic doctrine. I think that this *exact* argument about the wisdom of doing it, if it proves technically feasible, will take place at the highest levels of government. What would be really speculative is reaching a conclusion about which way that internal debate would be resolved.

[Petrosjko]

Well, I'll leave it to the gentlemen in question to defend their assertions vis a vis cost and cost-effectiveness.

If you want to see some how fun debates can get around here, do a search for ABM on the board and treat yourself to the discussions between Degan and Shep on the topic. Page after page of material, lovely personal invective, reams of quotes and pictorial evidence, good stuff.

Anyway, we'll stop flogging the horse for the moment and go on our about our business.

[Sea Skimmer]

Mostly, yeah. If we're talking expenses vis-a-vis other systems choices, and the cost-benefit analysis of choosing a completely new system development (say, manned supercruise bombers) vs. updating a system that's already paid for ... I would say that any conclusive comments about cost are extremely speculative at this point.

It's not speculative to believe that we can field a high-speed weapon system, which delivers a one-ton bomb for less then seventy million bucks per mission. With that cost ratio, even our preposterously expensive 2.1 billion per plane B-2 fleet could prove itself cheaper compared to conventional ICBM shots with just two combat sorties per plane, in each ones entire lifetime...

Mind you, that figure accounts for only the procurement cost of the conventional ICBM and not its R&D costs while it does take into account B-2 R&D costs, which are massively inflated by the order being cut short.

[Howedar]

There's also a great deal of infrastructure costs associated with deploying, mantaining, and protecting ICBMs.

[Sea Skimmer]

Note: If the ICBM/SLBM delivers a two-ton warhead, the B-2 still wins in cost at exactly three sorties per plane. Three-ton payload at about four point five sorties. But you're also looking at needing a bigger and thus more expensive missile. And of course the B-2 is simply preposterously expensive per unit.

[Chmee]

Note: If the ICBM/SLBM delivers a two-ton warhead, the B-2 still wins in cost at exactly three sorties per plane. Three-ton payload at about four point five sorties. But you're also looking at needing a bigger and thus more expensive missile. And of course the B-2 is simply preposterously expensive per unit.

No new missile or delivery system involved, the research is on replacing the MIRV package of a Trident-II (presumably a variant of the D5 that we've already budgeted to upgrade the Trident fleet to) with a smaller number of conventional warheads (possibly a single warhead). The only new components would be the re-entry vehicle, we've already paid for the subs, the missiles, etc. We've already committed the dollars to maintaining a fleet of Ohio-class boomers with some type of SLBM up to 2020, so the only real costs we're talking about in this hypothetical is re-entry vehicle/warhead development.

I didn't even want to bring up the fact that the same research is being done on Minuteman conventional arming.

[Howedar]

Way to miss the entire point about the cost per missile. You tend to replace things you use up, you know.

[Coyote]

THe V-150 is a great idea, but as you pointed out, Shep, there's not enough of them. In fact, the MP unit using these things is right acros the street from me. We're jealous as hell.

THe only thing about a 4-wheeler is that if it gets damaged, as in a wheel blown off, it can't self-extract. It would be hard to tow as well, requiring a crew evac under fire.

The reason I like multiwheel designs is the additional potential to use the vehicles remaining wheels to either reverse from the danger, even if it means dragging the nose bass-ackwards across the pavement in a glorious shower of sparks, or it at least has some extra load-carrying so another vehicle can tow it out a little easier.

But if the choice is between the V-150 and the up-armored HumVee, hell yeah, gimme the V-150 any day. A "Stryker Lite" would be better still.

[MKSheppard]

THe only thing about a 4-wheeler is that if it gets damaged, as in a wheel blown off, it can't self-extract. It would be hard to tow as well, requiring a crew evac under fire.

IIRC, isn't the Stryker "really" only a 4 wheel design due to design limitations
so it can "fit" onto a C-130?

[Chmee]

Way to miss the entire point about the cost per missile. You tend to replace things you use up, you know.

You were talking about the cost of maintaining, deploying, protecting ... costs we are already committed to in SLBM's because of strategic doctrine. So yes, way to miss the point I was making.

If you're talking per-missile costs (for already developed missiles) at $30 million a shot, yes, that's a damned expensive system. So let's figure the cost of a new strategic bomber system ... well, we can't, it's all hypothetical. But you have to shoot off a *lot* of already-built-and-paid-for Trident II's before you match just the development cost of a new strategic system, never mind acquisition and maintenance costs.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Way to miss the entire point about the cost per missile. You tend to replace things you use up, you know.

You were talking about the cost of maintaining, deploying, protecting ... costs we are already committed to in SLBM's because of strategic doctrine. So yes, way to miss the point I was making.

If you're talking per-missile costs (for already developed missiles) at $30 million a shot, yes, that's a damned expensive system. So let's figure the cost of a new strategic bomber system ... well, we can't, it's all hypothetical. But you have to shoot off a *lot* of already-built-and-paid-for Trident II's before you match just the development cost of a new strategic system, never mind acquisition and maintenance costs.

You'll have to replace those missiles for our deterrent and for many follow-up strikes to replace the sorties that the canceled bomber could have been making (and even at the absurd price of the B-2, would've won back its cost v. this system in a week's worth of sorties). Since the B-2 was only so expensive due to having its production run heavily cut-down, it stands to reason that the next gen bomber will have a more reasonable unit price.

And you ignored all the other problems. Its fun to watch someone bluff their way through this. Care to show us where this R&D for ultra-accurate SLBMs is?