Re: QDR Released


"Jack Love" <jackxxloveyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fkufu1tesa1b1lo3900f32gvmvejg4v7m7@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 19:32:53 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
<brooksvmi@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:


"Jack Love" <jackxxloveyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:dtefu1dgc6r3vg3erlu8i8qqo2f1n820us@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 6 Feb 2006 11:10:24 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
<brooksvmi@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

<miscellaneous major snippage>
Again that's only if you can hit the target in some meaningful way,
which I'm highly skeptical of (though it could be big enough the some
hit might be scored somewhere...is it guaranteed to be the one you
want or need?).

The DoD has already done some work looking at KE rounds versus such
targets.
How elastic do you think rock is?

How solid do you think rock is?

Solid enough that it does not behave very well in terms of elasticity. At
least, the kind of rock one would be building bunkers in does not. Trying
to
do so in heavily fractured or seamed strata would be a nightmare (hard
enough to surface mine such materiel, much less go deep).

How stupid do you think the bunker
designers are?

I'd ask you the same question?

Even 110 years ago the designers of bunkers built
shock compression spaces around the 'safe' areas, easily seen in
Honolulu today. And one wonders what modern materials laced into the
cement would do for general resistance?

OK, I'll notify the folks at DoD that you said their previous
investigations
into the potential of using KE weapons against such targets was wasted...

Just proving that an idea isn't unique and there have been solutions
developed which might still work.

Since you doin't seem to have many germane responses I'll just close
by saying: it looks more and more like a solution to keep somebody on
the promotion track.

You can make any asinine assumptions you choose to make--that is your own
prerogitive. Sort of like when you told me a couple of years back that the
entire idea of using long-range ballistic missiles in the conventional
strike role was so ludicrous that it did not deserve further
consideration--how are you having your crow, fried or baked?



When I looked it up a while ago the velocity at
impact for an ICBM warhead to be Mach 10. Not giving much time at
all.

Being as the document calls for the carriage of a PG guided warhead, I
somehow think this is not the big issue you seem to think it is.
Reducing
the impact velocity to a more "guidable" Mach 4 or so still leaves the
round
with a heck of a lot of energy.

The rule in real time software implementation is "there's enough time
if there's enough time, otherwise there isn't" it seems to me you're
giving up a heck of a lot of the energy you paid for in order to get a
'steerable' penetrator. Oh well, design choices are made where
necessary.

No. Firstly, the weapon was largely "paid for" long ago in terms of
procurement of the submarines to launch the missiles and the missile
airframes themselves. And we have to keep those systems in operation to
perform the nuclear deterrent role, so no added cost in terms of OPTEMPO
either. Sounds like when all is said and done, the program will be
comparitively "cheap" and give us a globally persistent rapid strike
capability that we just do not have now, and no other system promises in
the
forseeable future.



We did pretty well with Pershing II back in the early *eighties*.
Granted
it
was a shorter range and lower velocity system, but we have made
tremendous
gains since those days, too.

The Pershing wasn't the same vehicle and it was using a nuclear
warhead.

So what? It showed that a long range BM could be mated to a PG warhead and
attain (then unheard of) accuracy. Over twenty years ago. Think about
it--that happened in the days before the PC was even available! Any idea
how
far we have progressed since then?

It was also using active radar for final guidance a total
flight time of 77 seconds according to wiki....don't think the carp is
comparable to the apple at all.

I have watched Pershing's go up at White Sands (one launch kept me and my
detachment from getting breakfast on-time due to closing of the supply
route), and they spend more than 77 seconds aloft. Total *powered* flight
for the Pershing *I* was 77 seconds! You need to read your wiki more
carefully; the Pershing II had a bigger solid fuel motor than the Pershing
I. Range of the Pershing II was about 1200 miles--nothing to sneeze at. I
read somewhere that the PRC's DF-15/M-9 missile, roughly comparable in
terms
of flight parameters to Pershing II, has a terminal velocity of around
Mach
6, which indicates that the Pershing's terminal guidance system of the
early
eighties was able to handle speeds in that range--so why would we not be
able to do so today?

No response--figures. Lemme know when you figure out how to read those wiki
passages.

Brooks




A more plausible 'use' would be a cluster munitions delivery system
for taking out some transient high priority soft target.

That in and of itself is not a bad argument for the entire system
anyway.
Being able to hit soft but fleeting high value targets sells the plan.

And there we agree...though it's still a damn costly way to do it, I'm
more inclined to use Predators with Hellfires and/or gyrostablized .22
auto machine guns :). The Marines were interested in RPVs when the
Israelis showed a visiting General a picture with crosshairs on his
forehead taken from one of their very early RPVs.

Not going to get much in terms of global persistence with that approach,
though. What happens if your target is not beiong covered by an aerial
system at the very moment you decide you have to hit it? The biggest
single
advantage for this proposal, besides the potential against deeply
buried/very hard targets, is that it will allow the NCA to hit just
about
any point on the globe within 30 minutes or so, which we plainly cannot
do
now. As to cost, we already paid for the Tridents that will be used, and
they are apparently surplus to our nuclear deterrant requirements, so
does
that not make a case for the program being *more* cost effective than
developing a completely new system, with less range and speed?


Oh, 'global persistence' is now a requirement?

Yes--read the QDR. Page 49 should do the trick, bottom of the page, left
column, last complete sentence.

I thought it was
bunker busting.

That is another one. See above.

And it's still pretty much unexplained why a bunker
that one has apparently known about for some time suddenly needs
targetting within 30 minutes, Saddam demonstrated that the best
intelligence you're ever likely to have is easily foxed by a
sufficiently paranoid type and day -1 of GWII.

Do you have a point to make here? You really ought to read the document
you
are critiquing before you try to body-slam it, you know?






I still think the bunker busting approach that might work is a
penetrator with strap on JATO units and a parachute system pushed
out
the back of a C-130...plenty of time to stabilize, line up on the
target and give it the old wahoo. Also way cheaper with reusable
delivery vehicles.

That's fine if you're able to fly your C-130 over Iran to drop that
thing.

First you turn on your jammers and fry every receiver in the country.

If it was that simple, then why are AC-130's not sent in deep during the
opening of major aerial campaigns?

Because we haven't been targetting otherwise invulnerable bunker
systems, ever?

But you figure if we really need to, we (a) will always have fixed-wing
aircraft in position to do a strike within 30 minutes, and (b) they can
always penetrate merely relying upon their OEW and DEW capabilities,
right?
I don't think the JCS seems to agree with you. I know I don't.

Tora Bora was attacked by B-52s until the mountain was
rubbleized if the stories are to be believed.

And what kind of IADS was defending TB?


Then you blow everything out of the flight path. It's not like it's
going to be a secret very long.

But that approach sure will take a while, and a lot of resources, to
make
it
happen.

And as pointed out above, you aren't really likely to be able to make
it happen with the Trident system...

Let me send a quick message to the JCS, DSB, USAF, and USN letting them
know
you disagree with their conclusions.

the proposal has some
plausibility, but is it it worth the effort?

Let's see...we already have the basic missiles surplus to nuclear
deterrent
needs, we already have the boats to carry and launch them, boats that will
be continuing to go on patrol whether this program comes to fruition or
not...where is the tremendous "effort" required? Given that the QDR
projects
a 2-year timeline for IOC, I don't see any great requirement for undue
effort?

And you've got probably
a couple of years and test firings (using up more of the 'surplus'
launchers) to go through. Still seems questionable to me.

IOC projected two years out. Read the document.

Brooks


Brooks

And they certainly aren't going to
be less pissed off: look what they're doing about some cartoons.

AHS








.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: QDR Released
    ... into the potential of using KE weapons against such targets was wasted... ... The Pershing wasn't the same vehicle and it was using a nuclear ... Being able to hit soft but fleeting high value targets sells the plan. ... And it's still pretty much unexplained why a bunker ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: QDR Released
    ... into the potential of using KE weapons against such targets was wasted... ... The Pershing wasn't the same vehicle and it was using a nuclear ... Being able to hit soft but fleeting high value targets sells the plan. ... And it's still pretty much unexplained why a bunker ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: Strategic nuke VS carrier
    ... carrier has lots of time to get out from under or your missiles are so ... horribly inaccurate that you can't hit it anyway. ... targets at a distance of up to 400 km. ...
    (sci.military.naval)
  • Re: How to Lower U.S. Firearm Murder and Suicide Rates
    ... He has a 4x8 sheet of plywood with targets ... You know, the firearm owners who are members of formal gun clubs, where such ... Commandoes making statements like, "Head shots are nice, but a bit messy, ... and the next guy hit with a .45 will run half a mile. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: How to Lower U.S. Firearm Murder and Suicide Rates
    ... He has a 4x8 sheet of plywood with targets ... You know, the firearm owners who are members of formal gun clubs, where such ... Commandoes making statements like, "Head shots are nice, but a bit messy, ... and the next guy hit with a .45 will run half a mile. ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)