F-16 intercepts ballistic missile in test..

[Stuart]

Are aeroballistics the sort of thing ESSM was designed for then? What I'm thinking is that it's much better to shoot the bastard(s) down as far away from the CVBG as possible. Would the bigass SM-3 be useful in such situations?

The bigass SM-3 would be just teh ticket. ESSM doesn't have the range (it's maximum intercept ceiling is too low, by the time it can get a hit, the missile is already coming down and its too late

Hmmm, the joke is currently beyond me, sorry. Something about ballistic missiles in general?

There exists a series of alternate history novels, the later volumes of which deal with an reality in which the US went for manned bombers flying high and fast as opposed to ICBMs and slow, low-flying bombers. You can find the first book in the series here

[Adrian Laguna]

We need SLAM back. Come on, everyone loves it and I've been itching to have an excuse to bring it back, improved for better commie wasting abilities!

Pluto? Sure, just make it not spew fallout out its ass and double its speed. It would be a pretty sweet weapon to have in our arsenal.

[Stuart]

I've heard that US will retire it's AGM-129 stealth cruise missile. Does that mean they are picking speed and altitude? Is there a replacement?

The 129s are going now; they don't work too well and are pretty vulnerable. The bloom is fading off the whole Stealth technology rose quite fast, its great as long as one stays stealthy but as soon as holes appear in the shield, the systems relying on it get pretty vulnerable.

There's still a lot of talk and indecision about which way to deliver nuclear weapons. Personally I recommend Federal Express. Seriously, its a good question how to get them through to their targets. None of the available options are that good and the ones that aren'ta vailable (essentially going back to ultra-high speed manned bombers with a heavy battery of defensive technology) are horribly expensive to develop.

[Stuart]

I like the idea of a submarine force armed with hypersonic surface-skimming nuclear cruise missiles. If I'm not mistaken, by the time anyone sees them coming it's too late to do anything but say a quick prayer.

The problem there is that the airframe required to combine hypersonic and sea-skimming is very heavy (flying low over the sea causes a severe pounding effect on the airframe). Very fast and very low is OK for short ranges but above those it gets grueseome. Mind you, the Russian Project 949A boats with their side-mounted tubes for big missiles might well be an option.

Another problem with hypersonic missiles is that they have an enormous thermal blooms that can be seen while the missile is still far over the horizon (it literally looks like a volcano is hurtling towards you). Then, we can make sure the missile doesn't stay low down. For example, they all use radar altimeters to maintain their set altitude so we string radar reflectors along the cost (say on power lines?) so that the missile will think its got a high ridge in front of it and "climbs over it".

Torpedoes. The problem there is inland targets. How do we get at those. Also, to hit with torpedoes, the sub has to come in close.

There's no real answers here. Everything is still up in the air and being evaluated. What the F-16 test has done is shown, very graphically, that the defense is now, technologically speaking, so far ahead of the offense in strategic terms that its going to require a major breakthrough to reverse the situation.

[DavidEC]

Can the SM-3 engage surface targets via a ballistic arc as well? Apart from loitering bombers I can't think of a weapon with a faster response time over a few hundred miles, or one more difficult to intercept. Spammed SM-3s against ships... ouch.

Wow your own book! Nice.

I like the idea of a submarine force armed with hypersonic surface-skimming nuclear cruise missiles. If I'm not mistaken, by the time anyone sees them coming it's too late to do anything but say a quick prayer.

I'm not sure you can realistically have both hypersonics and surface-skimming without an absolutely amazing airframe and seeker-cooling to withstand the amazing temperatures you'd generate. The SR-71 went Mach 3 at 80,000 feet and got well into the several hundreds of degrees Celsius, now imagine Mach 5+ at 20 feet. In any case your range would be limited by insane fuel consumption (barring nuclear propulsion), and you'd also assume they don't have AEW. If they don't have AEW, I doubt they have the ability to shoot down an ordinary ballistic missile either or be quick enough to shoot down a subsonic cruise missile.

Personally I think ballistic missiles should be kept but spammed more. I'd sacrifice a bit of range and payload in order to have more missiles launched from more platforms from multiple angles and fewer warheads. I can't imagine an affordable system which can effectively stop an unpredicted multi-axis attack by thousands of missiles over a very large spread of territory (such as Russia or the United States).

In any case redundancy in method is best and so long as the money is there, many different systems should be kept operational.

[MKSheppard]

Personally I think ballistic missiles should be kept but spammed more.

Too expensive. The ICBMs may be cheap, but the true cost is having to build the hardened silo and C3I network for each missile.

Manned bombers; you can always extend the parking aprons at an AFB; and squeeze in more by reducing the space in between them.

[DavidEC]

Too expensive. The ICBMs may be cheap, but the true cost is having to build the hardened silo and C3I network for each missile.

I was thinking SSBNs more.

Manned bombers; you can always extend the parking aprons at an AFB; and squeeze in more by reducing the space in between them.

How survivable are they in an all-out fight involving deep territorial runs with someone like Russia? If we're talking stealth bombers then I can't imagine there are a cost advantage versus SSBNs, which I know are hideously expensive. Do manned bombers also have comparable firepower?

They would be high on my priority list though considering their non-nuclear usefulness.

[Stuart]

How survivable are they in an all-out fight involving deep territorial runs with someone like Russia?

Lets use the B-70 Valkyrie as a baseline (assuming its in service today and compare it with the SR-71 which actually ran against Soviet defenses - they never got close to it. The Valkyrie is 0.3 Mach faster, flies 5,000 feet higher, can turn more tightly and has a ferocious array of air-to-air, anti-surface and anti-radar missiles, all nuclear tipped. The Valkyrie has the most complex and effective EW equipment money can but (see the thread on SUTER for what that implies). In short, compared with the SR-71 the B-70 is a much harder target that can shoot back.

Do manned bombers also have comparable firepower?

Again using the B-70 as a baseline. The Valkyrie can carry 65,000 pounds of warload in its internal bomb bay and on four hardpoints under its wings. That's 27 B-83 nuclear devices. Of course, a lot of that load will be taken up by the aforesaid self-defense missiles but the payload makes a missile look feeble.

Finally bombers can be launched and recalled, retargeted, re-assigned or held on the fail-safe points for an attack. A misisle, once its launched has gone. It can't be aborted, destroyed or retargeted. Thats why the C4ISR systems for ICBMs are so costly.

They would be high on my priority list though considering their non-nuclear usefulness.

They can do the conventional stuff as well. Try taking out a restaurant in Baghdad with a Trident D-5 (on the other hand, it would probably be justifiable, I hear the food in that place was terrible.)

[Adrian Laguna]

[quote="Stuart]Another problem with hypersonic missiles is that they have an enormous thermal blooms that can be seen while the missile is still far over the horizon (it literally looks like a volcano is hurtling towards you).[/quote]
So I was wrong about them being hard to detect until they're virtually on top of you.

I figure that by being sub-launched you cut down on the enemy's reaction time as the missile needs to cover less distance. Hypersonic cuts down the reaction time even further as that lesser distance is covered faster. However the massive thermal bloom from the moment of launch is a problem.

Another idea would be slow and stealthy at first, then a high speed final leg on the home strech. However if you're going to do that then arguably you might as well make them slow and stealthy all the way through.

[DavidEC]

Lets use the B-70 Valkyrie as a baseline (assuming its in service today and compare it with the SR-71 which actually ran against Soviet defenses - they never got close to it. The Valkyrie is 0.3 Mach faster, flies 5,000 feet higher, can turn more tightly and has a ferocious array of air-to-air, anti-surface and anti-radar missiles, all nuclear tipped. The Valkyrie has the most complex and effective EW equipment money can but (see the thread on SUTER for what that implies). In short, compared with the SR-71 the B-70 is a much harder target that can shoot back.

Ah, fair enough, I was thinking of more conventional bombers - then in your example the problem is how much will a fully operational Valkyrie fleet cost versus a fleet of SSBNs with equivalent firepower?

Valkyries have more vulnerable bases I imagine, though and they need them considering their lesser endurance.

Again using the B-70 as a baseline. The Valkyrie can carry 65,000 pounds of warload in its internal bomb bay and on four hardpoints under its wings. That's 27 B-83 nuclear devices. Of course, a lot of that load will be taken up by the aforesaid self-defense missiles but the payload makes a missile look feeble.

How many missiles versus Valkyries, though? IIRC there are over 300 Tridents in service.

Finally bombers can be launched and recalled, retargeted, re-assigned or held on the fail-safe points for an attack. A misisle, once its launched has gone. It can't be aborted, destroyed or retargeted. Thats why the C4ISR systems for ICBMs are so costly.

Fair enough.

They can do the conventional stuff as well. Try taking out a restaurant in Baghdad with a Trident D-5 (on the other hand, it would probably be justifiable, I hear the food in that place was terrible.)

Talk about a tip, eh.

[DavidEC]

Another idea would be slow and stealthy at first, then a high speed final leg on the home strech. However if you're going to do that then arguably you might as well make them slow and stealthy all the way through.

No I reckon that might have some merit. The problem is probably in combining hypersonic low-altitude performance with small RCS in the same airframe.

[Medic]

This test was certainly very quick in the making, I swear I read about NCADE just earlier in the year @ defenseindustrydaily and BAM -- there's already been a successful intercept.

But yeah, ABM efforts across the spectrum are still an impossible, unworkable failure. It's comforting to know that in our lifetime's we'll finally be able to save lives instead of merely avenge them.

[Stuart]

Ah, fair enough, I was thinking of more conventional bombers - then in your example the problem is how much will a fully operational Valkyrie fleet cost versus a fleet of SSBNs with equivalent firepower?

Lets do the maths. A Trident D-5 can throw between 1 and 14 warheads depending on range and configuration. A B-70 Valkyrie can carry between 1 and 25 depending on configuration and defensive armament. So, lets equate one Valkyrie to one Trident D-5.

A Trident D-5 costs US$56.5 million each.

The "today" cost of a Valkyrie is hard to estimate but assuming they are mass production articles we can estimate their price at around US$475 million each (roughly 1/3 the cost of a B-2). So, on paper, we can buy 8.4 Trident D-5 missiles for the cost of one Valkyrie.

Only, we must think systems, not weapons. To deploy the Trident D-5 we need an Ohio class SSBN, today-cost US$3.2 billion dollars. It carries 24 missiles so the per-missile cost of that submarine is US$133 million. The cost of an airfield capable of handling a single bomb group (72UE) of Valkyries is US$500 million, a per-aircraft cost of US$6.9 million.

Therefore the immediate system cost of the Trident D-5 is US$189.8 million. The immediate system cost of the Valkyrie is US$481.9 million. This reduces the cost differential to 2.5 missiles for one Valkyrie.

Now we add in comamnd control and systems cost; these are hard toa ssess but the command network for the SSBNs is very expensive. Nuclear Weapons Audit put it at roughly three times the cost of the submarine; no figure for an airbase is available but its much less so lets assume its three times the cost of the base (its probably much less). That gives us US$9.6 billion per submarine as opposed to US$1.5 billion for the base ful of bombers. Per missile that's US$400 million, per aircraft its US$20.8 million.

So, our final SYSTEM cost balance is US$589.8 million for the Trident D-5 and US$502.7 million for the Valkyrie. In other words, on a unitized delivery basis, the Valkyrie fleet is 15 percent cheaper than the Trident D-5 fleet.

Valkyries have more vulnerable bases I imagine, though and they need them considering their lesser endurance.

The Valkyrie actually has less vulnerable bases. Why? because it can be launched at the first sign of trouble and sent on its way. If it was a mistake or a false alarm or the enemy ruins the fun by surrendering, they can turn around and come back. If the enemy hits the base, its empty. A ballistic missile cannot be turned around, aborted or retargeted. Once fired, it will hit its target unles sits shot down. So we have to be very sure what is happening before we light the blue touchpaper and retire to a safe distance. That emans (in effect) we have to have warheads initiating on our territory before we can fire. So the base structure has to be very solid and secure.

As to endurance, a B-70 can be refuelled in mid-air to extend its endurance as much as necessary. A Trident D-5 has an endurance that's exactly equal to the time it takes to reach its target. No more, no less.

[Kane Starkiller]

Sources like fas.org state that B-70 was vulnerable to even 1960s SAMs. How accurate is that and how would it stand up against today air defenses?

[Sea Skimmer]

Can the SM-3 engage surface targets via a ballistic arc as well? Apart from loitering bombers I can't think of a weapon with a faster response time over a few hundred miles, or one more difficult to intercept. Spammed SM-3s against ships... ouch.

SM-3 has a hit to kill warhead, and it kill vehicle is designed to maneuver in the near edge of space using thrusters rather then fins. It would work extremely poorly as an anti ship weapon if at all, and you’ve got the whole issue of over the horizon guidance to deal with.

Sources like fas.org state that B-70 was vulnerable to even 1960s SAMs. How accurate is that and how would it stand up against today air defenses?

Back in the 1960s everyone thought that the SA-2 missile would have a 95% hit rate in combat, as would all other missiles (thus all the gunless fighters flying around) and that missile performance would rapidly reach levels which we have not even see today. Vietnam proved that all to be dead wrong. Don’t use FAS.org as a source of information; it’s a biased and strongly pro disarmament site. Globalsecuitry.org has all the same good information they have, and then a whole lot more.

[Chris OFarrell]

Taking the 'systems' vs 'warheads' apology further in terms of security and vulnerability, I can't exactly see how the Valkyrie has *less* vulnerable bases.

Consider. In a surprise attack / first strike scenario, a good chunk of the SSBN fleet is going to be on patrol as a matter of course, out in the ocean and all but impossible to find, though I grant that that concept may not always hold true, but it still appears to be valid today.

The Airbase on the other hand, even IF they are keeping their entire bomber line ready on a 5 minute scramble -what is the cost of that BTW, it must be bloody maintenance intensive, crew intensive and so on- are still in a fixed position with the bombers on the ground. And if its on the ground and known, you can hit it. Perhaps with a Stealth Bomber, perhaps with a special forces operation sneaking a nuke onto the base or something.

You could get around this by, like SAC used to, having a chunk of the bomber fleet always flying at failsafe points, but that would no doubt increase the cost both in terms of maintenance, crews, airframes, tanker support and so on when you consider it in terms of a system. Not to mention if the "other guy" has his own interceptors shadowing your bombers ready to pounce and engage if things go hot.

Not to mention the return to the 'bad old days' mentality.

So I can see where a B-70 wing can be far more useful in far more ways then an SSBN, which is just a 'stealthy' forward deployed ICBM platform when you get down to it, but it *is* a stealthy platform and the most survivable in a first strike scenario.

You could mitigate these factors, in terms of a strike against the airbase by stealth aircraft or commandos, but that then is a whole NEW cost factor into the equation of a state of the art IADS, a huge security force...

OTOH, the subs have their own sunken costs, not the least of which is the two complete crews they have, allowing them to stay out on patrol for long periods of times or 'surge' the boats out as fast as possible when the WW3 button gets pressed, though probably not fast enough to dodge a 'launch on alert' ICBM salvo from the bad guys.

[MKSheppard]

The Airbase on the other hand, even IF they are keeping their entire bomber line ready on a 5 minute scramble -what is the cost of that BTW, it must be bloody maintenance intensive, crew intensive and so on- are still in a fixed position with the bombers on the ground. And if its on the ground and known, you can hit it. Perhaps with a Stealth Bomber, perhaps with a special forces operation sneaking a nuke onto the base or something.

Too bad we have airfields in the middle of nowhere like North Dakota, which are about 15-20 minutes away from being hit by ICBMs.

Not to mention that saboteurs sneaking onto the base is utterly implausible thanks to AF Security police...at least in the good old days of SAC; I don't know what it's like now.

You could get around this by, like SAC used to, having a chunk of the bomber fleet always flying at failsafe points

Wrong.

Forward deploy them to Dulles International, Reagan National, LAX, etc etc; sitting on one end of the tarmac with their own ground support equipment if tensions rise.

[Stuart]

Consider. In a surprise attack / first strike scenario, a good chunk of the SSBN fleet is going to be on patrol as a matter of course, out in the ocean and all but impossible to find, though I grant that that concept may not always hold true, but it still appears to be valid today.

The launch palyforms may be relatively invulnerable but the shoreside C4 facilities are very vulnerable to a decapitating strike. In addition, onlya limited proportion of the subs are at sea at any one time (its about 10 percent for the Russians, about a third for ours); the rest are sitting in port, since the ports are coastal they can be taken out with only a couple of minutes notice - the Russians use a syurface-burst version of their SSN-16 rocker-delivered nuclear depth charge for that role. The airbases are far inland, we get 15 - 20 minutes warning of an inbound. The catch is we don't have to wait for an inbound, we can launch just because we feel unesy and always call the birds back.

The Airbase on the other hand, even IF they are keeping their entire bomber line ready on a 5 minute scramble -what is the cost of that BTW, it must be bloody maintenance intensive, crew intensive and so on- are still in a fixed position with the bombers on the ground.

why? The bombers just sit there. It was a stated requirement taht teh B-70 could be started up and rolling within 5 minutes of an alert - and they got out of teh base at 15 second intervals per runway. No extra cost for that, its nota s if we're running the birds's engines all the time.

And if its on the ground and known, you can hit it. Perhaps with a Stealth Bomber,

hundreds of miles inland - I don;t think so.

perhaps with a special forces operation sneaking a nuke onto the base or something.

Not in the real world

You could get around this by, like SAC used to, having a chunk of the bomber fleet always flying at failsafe points, but that would no doubt increase the cost both in terms of maintenance, crews, airframes, tanker support and so on when you consider it in terms of a system. Not to mention if the "other guy" has his own interceptors shadowing your bombers ready to pounce and engage if things go hot.

Failsafe points were chosen to prevent that happening.,

Not to mention the return to the 'bad old days' mentality.

Bad old days? Why?

So I can see where a B-70 wing can be far more useful in far more ways then an SSBN, which is just a 'stealthy' forward deployed ICBM platform when you get down to it, but it *is* a stealthy platform and the most survivable in a first strike scenario.

Disproven. Say again. The subs themselves are hard to find and kill but the shore based infrastructure they depend on is not; its much more vulnerable than the airbases far inland.

[Stuart]

Sources like fas.org state that B-70 was vulnerable to even 1960s SAMs. How accurate is that and how would it stand up against today air defenses?

It's plain flat wrong; its just an unquestioning repeat of McNamara propaganda.

Think it out for yourself. The Russians never even got close to intercepting an SR-71. The B-70 flies higher, is faster, has much better EW capability and is armed to the teeth so it can shoot back.

A cannot kill B. C is less vulnerable than B so what chance does A stand against C? And C is fifty years old; we could do a lot better.

[Hawkwings]

Obviously the answer is submarine-carriers basing B-70s...

What is the range of a B-70 launched from these inland bases?

[Jadeite]

For more information on the B-70, I suggest reading "The Manned Missile", which was posted in the HAB. I've rehosted it here.

[K. A. Pital]

The newer SAM complexes could possibly deal with such a craft, if it actually penetrates a densely filled region, instead of just skimming it, but that's just my suggestion.

There's no way a B-70 could have been vulnerable to 1960s technology.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Not that I disagree with you Stuart, in fact I would like to see the US move over to Mach 3+ high-flying bombers. But shouldn't we factor in each system's development cost? I remember you saying the technology for B-70 and SR-71 type planes was gone, like the technology for the B-52's wing structure, and we'd have to start completely over from scratch. How much would that cost us?

[Phantasee]

Not that I disagree with you Stuart, in fact I would like to see the US move over to Mach 3+ high-flying bombers. But shouldn't we factor in each system's development cost? I remember you saying the technology for B-70 and SR-71 type planes was gone, like the technology for the B-52's wing structure, and we'd have to start completely over from scratch. How much would that cost us?

They lost the tech for the B-52's wings?

Is this a case of losing the plans to the Saturn Vs?

[Hawkwings]

I think it's the fact that we disassembled the equipment used to make the B-52's wings, so we'd have to rebuild those before we could make new wings.