NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Strategic Weapons Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Flawless Versus Hapless

February 26, 2009: The U.S. Trident SLBM (Sea Launched Ballistic Missile) set another record when it made its 126th successful test flight. No other strategic ballistic missile has been as reliable. The 58 ton, 44 foot long Trident II, has not had a test failure since 1989. The Trident had two failures during its 49 development test launches, but since then, it has been the most reliable SLBM to ever enter service. Each Trident II costs about $65 million and first entered service in 1990. Some of them are fired every year, to insure that the current configuration (of hardware and software) still works as it is supposed to. The Trident has a range of 11,000 kilometers.

In contrast, the latest Russian SLBM, the Bulava, is having an awful time in testing. While the overall (out of over 5,000 of them) failure rate for test launches of Russian rockets is eight percent (and the U.S. Trident I had a failure rate of 13 percent while in development), half of Bulava's development test launches have failed. The 48 ton, 56 foot long Bulava costs about the same as the Trident II. Such reliability is a crucial aspect of weapons, just like range and accuracy.

The 45 ton Bulava SCBM is a little shorter than the land based Topol M missile it is based on, so that it could fit into the missile tube on the submarine. Thus Bulava has a shorter range of some 8,000 kilometers. Bulava has three stages and uses solid fuel. Currently, each Bulava carries a single 500 kiloton nuclear weapon, plus decoys and the ability to maneuver. The warhead is also shielded to provide protection from the electronic pulse of nearby nuclear explosions. Take away all of these goodies, and the Bulava could be equipped with up to ten smaller (150 kiloton) warheads. But the big thing is still trying to defeat American anti-missile systems. But first Bulava has to get the bugs out. Russian SLBMs have long been plagued with development problems. Think of it as a tradition the Russians are still trying to lose.

It's always been assumed, by American military planners, that Russian ICBMs and SLBMs were less reliable. But even with that, enough of them would work, and  kill millions of Americans, and cripple the economy for over a decade, if there were ever a nuclear attack.

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article INFANTRY: The Eyeball Grenade Sees All


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

bobbymike       2/26/2009 3:40:40 PM
Great missile system now it is time to replace MMIII with a new system. The land based strateic deterrent should be a missile able to carry one or multiple warheads to avoid "strategic surprise" It could be built on the principals of the Trident II so there is high confidence in its reliability. New RV's with high accuracy with penaids and decoys. Then build a few for conventional prompt global strike.
 
Quote    Reply

Slim Pickinz       2/26/2009 6:29:52 PM
While the concept of the conventially-armed ICBM for quick strikes sounds promising, it is a little different in practice.
 
The problem with using an ICBM for such a mission is that other nations will not know whether that missile carries a conventional or nuclear warhead. What would the Russians think if their satellites detected a missile launching out of the ICBM fields in North Dakota or Wyoming? Same thing with SLBMs. If a nation detects a SLBM launch off their coast, they don't know the warhead type, but must make a counter-attack decision very quickly as the missile would likely reach its target within 15 minutes. Such situations can easily lead to mistakes with BIG consequences.
 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo       2/26/2009 6:47:39 PM
So set up new CICBM launchers somewhere else, duh!  They don't have to be buried or armored, they are not nukes, wouldn't necessarily be nuke targets.  Make them identifiable as such from space.  Put them in the Chicago suburbs or outside Sacramento or Seattle or somewhere in Maine or Florida or some such.  Maybe on freighters or some fine milspec surface ship which is again, not designed for nuclear warfighting. 
 
Plus if they are any good they should calculate the trajectory - what does Moscow care if we quick-strike Chinese coastal SAM sites, Pak terror camps, Iranian nuc plants, etc.?
 
Quote    Reply

bobbymike       2/26/2009 11:37:28 PM
A fellow blogger at the Ares Defense Blog made a good point about misinterpreted launch. During the Iraq and Afgan wars dozens of nuclear capable cruise missiles as well as nuclear rated bombers were flying very close to Russian airspace. Yet this did not cause the Russian to launch a massive retaliation at the US. While not the same as a ballistic missile it does show that precautions can be taken, I imagine the Russians understood that the US would use these weapons in the Gulf and were not worried (pure guess on my part) Something as simple as coastal basing plus allowable "surprise" inspections by the Russians or Chinese might work.
 
As air defenses get better and better, even against stealth, Mach 15 RV's might be the best way to "kick down the door" in future conflicts.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       2/27/2009 4:29:58 AM

A fellow blogger at the Ares Defense Blog made a good point about misinterpreted launch. During the Iraq and Afgan wars dozens of nuclear capable cruise missiles as well as nuclear rated bombers were flying very close to Russian airspace. Yet this did not cause the Russian to launch a massive retaliation at the US. While not the same as a ballistic missile it does show that precautions can be taken, I imagine the Russians understood that the US would use these weapons in the Gulf and were not worried (pure guess on my part) Something as simple as coastal basing plus allowable "surprise" inspections by the Russians or Chinese might work.

As air defenses get better and better, even against stealth, Mach 15 RV's might be the best way to "kick down the door" in future conflicts.
 
 
Cruise missiles and manned bombers are not first strike weapons, the Trident missile is. 
 
The problem is the speed (4 - 5 miles/sec) of an ICBM like the Trident means that if you do not spot it before the 3rd stage deploys it is only 2 to 5 minutes from impact.  This allows no time for collecting data, consultation. and deliberation to reach a decision. 
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       2/27/2009 5:41:35 AM

So set up new CICBM launchers somewhere else, duh!  They don't have to be buried or armored, they are not nukes, wouldn't necessarily be nuke targets.  Make them identifiable as such from space.  Put them in the Chicago suburbs or outside Sacramento or Seattle or somewhere in Maine or Florida or some such. 

Only if you are the one that does all the work to get the permits and handle the litigation.  Earliest completion date will probably be after 2040. If you succeed, which I rather doubt.
 
An ICBM makes an incredible amount of noise when it launches.  Plus the boosters represent an explosive potential of over 20 tons of TNT each so the missiles will have to be located a couple of miles from any inhabited location.
 
Maybe on freighters or some fine milspec surface ship which is again, not designed for nuclear warfighting. 

How do you design a ship for "nuclear warfighting"?  How many of those features could be eliminated and still have a vessel that can survive launching it's load of ICBMs?
 
Has anyone launched an ICBM from a conventional surface vessel?
 
Plus if they are any good they should calculate the trajectory - what does Moscow care if we quick-strike Chinese coastal SAM sites, Pak terror camps, Iranian nuc plants, etc.?

Modern ICBMs do not follow a pure ballistic path.  The Peacekeeper and Trident II actually enter low orbit and then deorbit their RVs in order to achieve longer range.  They have multiple independently targeted RVs to further complicate things.
 
It should also be noted that a C-ICBM will be using the same RVs as the regular nuclear armed ICBM, just with the nuclear device replaced with a machined metal slug.
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357       2/27/2009 7:19:25 AM




So set up new CICBM launchers somewhere else, duh!  They don't have to be buried or armored, they are not nukes, wouldn't necessarily be nuke targets.  Make them identifiable as such from space.  Put them in the Chicago suburbs or outside Sacramento or Seattle or somewhere in Maine or Florida or some such. 




Only if you are the one that does all the work to get the permits and handle the litigation.  Earliest completion date will probably be after 2040. If you succeed, which I rather doubt.
 
Not to mention the environmental permits. Rocket fuel is TOXIC..
 
An ICBM makes an incredible amount of noise when it launches.  Plus the boosters represent an explosive potential of over 20 tons of TNT each so the missiles will have to be located a couple of miles from any inhabited location.

That is a severe umderestimate!

Maybe on freighters or some fine milspec surface ship which is again, not designed for nuclear warfighting. 

How do you design a ship for "nuclear warfighting"?  How many of those features could be eliminated and still have a vessel that can survive launching it's load of ICBMs?

USS Norton Sound was damaged after test launching a five tonne Viking Rocket.

Has anyone launched an ICBM from a conventional surface vessel?

 CREF above.


Plus if they are any good they should calculate the trajectory - what does Moscow care if we quick-strike Chinese coastal SAM sites, Pak terror camps, Iranian nuc plants, etc.?


Modern ICBMs do not follow a pure ballistic path.  The Peacekeeper and Trident II actually enter low orbit and then deorbit their RVs in order to achieve longer range.  They have multiple independently targeted RVs to further complicate things.

The fall of shot from a missile is hard to predict when it maneuvers in fly out. Topol does this maneuvering in mid boost and the Russians brag of it. Our rockets  do it better, but we DON'T brag about it, for obvious reasons. There are some techniques we use that we don't want our enemies to copy or try to defend against.  

It should also be noted that a C-ICBM will be using the same RVs as the regular nuclear armed ICBM, just with the nuclear device replaced with a machined metal slug.
 
With no way to tell the difference.


 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       2/28/2009 2:44:39 AM
 
Maybe on freighters or some fine milspec surface ship which is again, not designed for nuclear warfighting. 

How do you design a ship for "nuclear warfighting"?  How many of those features could be eliminated and still have a vessel that can survive launching it's load of ICBMs?

USS Norton Sound was damaged after test launching a five tonne Viking Rocket.
 
Has anyone launched an ICBM from a conventional surface vessel?

 CREF above.

 
The Viking was a 5t to 7t NASA sounding rocket design based on captured Nazi V-2 technology, not a 33t to 59t Trident ICBM.
 
The Italian navy converted a WWII heavy cruiser built in 1936, the Giuseppe Garibaldi, to a guided missile cruiser that included 4 silos for 13t Polaris missiles, but were never able to get the US to sell them any.  Test launches were apparently carried out, but there is no information on how successful they were.
 
Quote    Reply

jlb       2/28/2009 3:14:44 AM
Methinks the real problem with conventionally armed ICBM's is they're a friggingly expensive way to deliver 1-2t of ordnance.
 
Quote    Reply

flyingarty    CSBA   3/2/2009 11:37:24 AM
The Center Strategic Budget Analysis has also made this idea known. Use Minuteman and Trident missles carrying conventional warheads as the countries long distance strike platform. The big problem? What other posters have stated so far: what if Russia gets ancy?
 
Flyingarty
 
Quote    Reply

mabie       5/27/2009 7:06:44 AM
If there is a need to phase out the Minuteman, why not just replace them with Tridents since the latter appear to work flawlessly. I don't know about retrfitting them into MM silos though but you would save billions on R&D.
 
Quote    Reply

stbretnco       5/27/2009 8:32:19 AM
The Trident has a larger diameter than the Minuteman, making fitting the Trident into existing silos problematic at best.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Help GM out.   5/27/2009 12:32:16 PM

The Trident has a larger diameter than the Minuteman, making fitting the Trident into existing silos problematic at best.

 

 


Make a road mobile TEL.
 
Quote    Reply

scooterfan    Florida   5/28/2009 12:27:34 AM
I'm liking the idea of making the state of Florida into a launching platform.  Lord knows the state isn't good for much else and is an environmental disaster from the start.  Well the last isn't quite true, nice home for alligators and mosquito, before the developers parted and parceled it out. 
 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy