- Joined
- 27 September 2006
- Messages
- 6,353
- Reaction score
- 6,649
How hard can it be.....Security would still be an issue, and kinda hard to camouflage.
How hard can it be.....Security would still be an issue, and kinda hard to camouflage.
Security would still be an issue, and kinda hard to camouflage.
Ironically, the Minuteman and Sentinel have a much lower payload than Tridents, only carrying 1-3 warheads.Can I ask a stupid question?
If Trident missiles are accurate enough is the only reason for a land based missile to have a heavier payload?
Considering that the silos and wiring weren't even in the original RFP for the bids, I'm surprised that the bidders didn't file a complaint first!Stop work order for Command & Launch Segment as the entire programme is undergoing restructure due to triggering the Nunn-McCurdy Act:
![]()
Air Force Orders Halt to Some Work on Sentinel ICBM
The Air Force is pausing work on launch facilities for its new Sentinel intercontinental ballistic missile program (ICBM).www.airandspaceforces.com
They are cheap, and decoy silos could easily be constructed to confuse enemy about the ICBM real numbers and placement.I can see no value in fixed missile silos
That's a constant question of proper balance between personal liberty and government control that made a state efficient. As everyrhing else, it changes with technology development. At some point its more efficient to have more liberty and less control; at some point the opposite is true. The balance is dynamic; there is no "forever solution"That is certainly true in China and Russia but as in the UK any infrastructure built by the government faces public opposition, delays, poor management and massive cost overruns
Still, there are wast areas of unused land even in USA; Nevada deserts, for example. And the matter of infrastructure cost could be lessned by switching toward the Soviet concept of storing missile in sealed container, reducing the silo to just a hardened storage container. You could hire private companies to construct thousands of silos, and then just move a limited number of missile containers & decoys between them. No extrenal observation could be sure, what exactly is in container, loaded in silo number 5433; a missile, or a dummy weight?That is certainly true in China and Russia but as in the UK any infrastructure built by the government faces public opposition, delays, poor management and massive cost overruns
The Brits base their deterrence more on budgets and less on actual capabilities. Evident by the fact that they lacks a proper triad, something even the struggling US of A is still upholding. I cant blame them, with a devil like the Treasury holding their throat like that.I see some parallels with the evolution of the UK nuclear deterrent.
I can see no value in fixed missile silos and mobile ICBMs do not seem to solve the problem.
Bomber launched weapons offer some ability to threaten an opponent visibly
There's lots of government land that already has missile silos in it in the US. Putting a new silo in that land is not going to attract much protest beyond the usual "Hey, you need to do the Environmental Impact Statement for this" legally-required delays.That is certainly true in China and Russia but as in the UK any infrastructure built by the government faces public opposition, delays, poor management and massive cost overruns
SSBNs have a rescue buoy. Or rather, a "reason we're sunk" buoy. It can be set to send one of two messages: "Sunk-accident" and "Sunk-enemy action". The buoy signal can be changed in seconds, it's a simple lever switch that normally sits set on "accident".Subs sailing in international water can be drowned at a moment's notice with nothing more ambiguous than a "mis-directed" UUV. It is a hypothetical, borderline baseless hypothetical of course given the history of SSBN-related incidents versus silos and thelike but sub-based deterrence base its validity wholely on stealth. And a tiny bit on trajectory shaping, but you get the idea. The more sensors improve the less survivable SSBNs become.
ICBMs though, they are obviously there. Silos can be made as durable as possible. And then there are exotic solutions like tunnel networks that Iran and the PRC already have extensive experience on. The efforts required to actually threaten these installations would be so colossal and obvious and for the entire Cold War could only be done by full scale nuclear attack, and probably still now.
It's arguable that the Outer Space Treaty has already been violated by Russia and possible China.So in the end, all three arms of the triad complement each other. Sure it will cost you an arm and a leg but you can probably afford decent insurance with that money. Unless STRATCOM and Congress is willing to move to more out-of-the-box thinking like orbital basing and violate every treaties on space warfare in the meantime.
You still face the fact the subs have been sunk by conventional means so the question of “do you go nuclear” is not easy.There's lots of government land that already has missile silos in it in the US. Putting a new silo in that land is not going to attract much protest beyond the usual "Hey, you need to do the Environmental Impact Statement for this" legally-required delays.
SSBNs have a rescue buoy. Or rather, a "reason we're sunk" buoy. It can be set to send one of two messages: "Sunk-accident" and "Sunk-enemy action". The buoy signal can be changed in seconds, it's a simple lever switch that normally sits set on "accident".
It's arguable that the Outer Space Treaty has already been violated by Russia and possible China.
If an SSBN has been sunk by enemy action, I greatly suspect that the response will be nuclear.You still face the fact the subs have been sunk by conventional means so the question of “do you go nuclear” is not easy.
If an SSBN has been sunk by enemy action, I greatly suspect that the response will be nuclear.
Simple and I like it. But with how things are these day we will need more "flexible" post-mortem actions. Plus, do the buoys transmit back or must the SAR guys collect the message from it on-site? I'd prefer a prompt strike on the enemy over waiting days for a speech and nothing after.SSBNs have a rescue buoy. Or rather, a "reason we're sunk" buoy. It can be set to send one of two messages: "Sunk-accident" and "Sunk-enemy action". The buoy signal can be changed in seconds, it's a simple lever switch that normally sits set on "accident".
Arguably so, but the US lacks the political will to say "hey, here are hard evidences the other two broke this treaty, so we are leaving too". Against dictators you need to play hardball.It's arguable that the Outer Space Treaty has already been violated by Russia and possible China.
The thing with irrational actors is that they believe they can get away with anything. Would criminals feel deterred if we implement the death penalty again? We need a robust ISR apparatus to support flexible responses and further out, preemptive strikes. The best way to fix a problem is to never let it happen in the first place. To that end, space basing is quite suitable. The enemy preps a couple of TELs to sucker punch your CSG, deorbit a warhead right onto them.What is the point of deterrence if the enemy moves audaciously and there is no retaliation? To your point, I think the response would have to be nuclear on principle. On this line of thinking, I can foresee an attack on a CSG provoking a nuclear response. Perhaps not instantly, but I think the train has already left the station in this scenario. Call me dramatic, but I believe escalation dominance is key.
The thing with irrational actors is that they believe they can get away with anything. Would criminals feel deterred if we implement the death penalty again? We need a robust ISR apparatus to support flexible responses and further out, preemptive strikes. The best way to fix a problem is to never let it happen in the first place. To that end, space basing is quite suitable. The enemy preps a couple of TELs to sucker punch your CSG, deorbit a warhead right onto them.
Maybe you should offer some proofs? Otherwise I could claim that it was violated by US, you know.It's arguable that the Outer Space Treaty has already been violated by Russia and possible China.
Radio in the buoy screaming to everyone in range. Kinda like a ship's EPIRB, but a little fancier.Simple and I like it. But with how things are these day we will need more "flexible" post-mortem actions. Plus, do the buoys transmit back or must the SAR guys collect the message from it on-site? I'd prefer a prompt strike on the enemy over waiting days for a speech and nothing after.
Radio in the buoy screaming to everyone in range. Kinda like a ship's EPIRB, but a little fancier.
Been a very long time since I watched Abyss, but I believe so. There's actually two of them, one port side just aft of the sail and the other starboard side at the end of the turtleback.Wasn't this beacon basically shown in operation at the beginning of Jame's Cameron's film "Abyss" when the SSBN collided with a seamount and sank?
They are cheap, and decoy silos could easily be constructed to confuse enemy about the ICBM real numbers and placement.
As I said, adopt the "sealed round" approach - in which silo is merely a concrete shelter for a missile, sealed inside the launch container. It would reduce silo cost greatly.This is a brave assumption given how the United States builds things, or rather, doesn't. In theory it would be simple, but the MX debacle showed why it was impossible, and that hasn't changed given Sentinel chose to reuse silos as well. No doubt they did an analysis of alternatives and found that building new silos would breach $100 billion or whatever their initial target budget was.
As I said, adopt the "sealed round" approach - in which silo is merely a concrete shelter for a missile, sealed inside the launch container. It would reduce silo cost greatly.
Well, if the warhead on high orbit, they aren't very destabilizing - the long delivery time (hours/days) and easy observation made them totally unsuitable for any kind of first strike (i.e. making them a purely retaliation weapon).Space basing nuclear warheads is an incredibly destabilizing idea. If some other country begins doing so, the U.S. will hand choice but to respond, but it is a road best avoided if possible.
How technically feasible would it be for any advancing nation to send a spacecraft to grab some warheads from orbit?Space basing nuclear warheads is an incredibly destabilizing idea. If some other country begins doing so, the U.S. will hand choice but to respond, but it is a road best avoided if possible.
I suppose no different from a satellite. Then again, a warhead+RV in orbit is essentially a satellite.How technically feasible would it be for any advancing nation to send a spacecraft to grab some warheads from orbit?
Well, if the warhead on high orbit, they aren't very destabilizing - the long delivery time (hours/days) and easy observation made them totally unsuitable for any kind of first strike (i.e. making them a purely retaliation weapon).
What is the point of deterrence if the enemy moves audaciously and there is no retaliation?
D-5s have more throw weight than the Minuteman. The reason for land-based is to not have all your eggs in one basket. It also raises the threshold for an attack. Nuking a country's homeland is going to get a much more dramatic response than sinking an SSBN.Can I ask a stupid question?
If Trident missiles are accurate enough is the only reason for a land based missile to have a heavier payload?
Doable, if they let you. Anybody who parks nukes in orbit is going to have cameras onboard to monitor the situation.How technically feasible would it be for any advancing nation to send a spacecraft to grab some warheads from orbit?
Technically it's not much harder. Especially considering the low cost of modern launches.No one is building a high orbit RV and investing in all the extra money and launch capacity that would entail.
Yes, but there is a catch - the anti-satellite weapon, launched from Earth or low orbit, would took hours, maybe days, to reach the warheads. And its direction would be pretty obvious. While the HEO warheads are vulnerable to attack, they are not vulnerable to sudden attack.And such a system is much more vulnerable to an anti satellite weapon than a terrestrial warhead is to an ABM.
Doable, if they let you. Anybody who parks nukes in orbit is going to have cameras onboard to monitor the situation.
Rhetorical. Sorry.'The' enemy? Which enemy?
Technically it's not much harder. Especially considering the low cost of modern launches.
Yes, but there is a catch - the anti-satellite weapon, launched from Earth or low orbit, would took hours, maybe days, to reach the warheads. And its direction would be pretty obvious. While the HEO warheads are vulnerable to attack, they are not vulnerable to sudden attack.
Well, Falcon-9 Block 5 could launch about 5.800 kg on GTO. More than enough for a bus, several warheads, and retro-rocket booster (since the system is space-based, we could afford to use storable liquid-fuel and get more specific impulse than solid fuel could).Technically it’s feasible; practically it is vastly more expensive to put something in high orbit along with all of the fuel necessary to deorbit it.
These are great points I completely overlooked in my "defund the Sentinel" campaign. It's a shame given these facts that the Prompt Global Strike conventional ICBM never got off the ground, granted for clear destabilizing reasons.Launch on warning is still an option. Silos storage is also very inexpensive from a maintenance and manpower point of view.