New ICBM studies underway for the AF

The AF is currently researching its new ICBM in a program called the Land Based Strategic Deterent (LBSD) The LBSD is supposed to have GPS guided warheads, be able to carry both conventional and nuclear weapons as well. It looks like they are looking to field it in 2020 or so.





[edit on 4-7-2004 by FredT]

A none nuclear ICBM well I guess it could come in handy when you want to hit a city but you cant get close with your bombers because the air space is heavily defended.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
A none nuclear ICBM well I guess it could come in handy when you want to hit a city but you cant get close with your bombers because the air space is heavily defended.

Yeah I actually started another thread on this topic. It makes sence. With GPS guidence, you could hit anyplace in 30 minutes can't be shot down except by us of course and no body is a risk unless you count the schmuck at ground zero

I would still have to say cruise missles are more practical except in an emergancy. This should be interesting to see how they are used in actual war.

Originally posted by cyberdude78
I would still have to say cruise missles are more practical except in an emergancy. This should be interesting to see how they are used in actual war.

You clearly would have to let all of the countries with ICBMS know of you launch. You don't want them launching on you because of a mistake. It would really have to be limited to small conflicts like Iraq, or Afganistan etc. Send one in chinas direction and you may bite off more than you can chew

plus ICBM's can carry more juice than a cruise missile also thats the one problem that other nuclear countries might think you are attacking them so they might launch but i dont thin the US government would ask premission or let anyone know they are about to strike something so who knows.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
plus ICBM's can carry more juice than a cruise missile also thats the one problem that other nuclear countries might think you are attacking them so they might launch but i dont thin the US government would ask premission or let anyone know they are about to strike something so who knows.

Its a tricky question Say the target was one of the "Stan" countries and you did a polar shot over Russia, youd have to let them so so that they would not freak out. Esp with thier reduced detection capacities these days.

Originally posted by FredT

Originally posted by WestPoint23
plus ICBM's can carry more juice than a cruise missile also thats the one problem that other nuclear countries might think you are attacking them so they might launch but i dont thin the US government would ask premission or let anyone know they are about to strike something so who knows.

Its a tricky question Say the target was one of the "Stan" countries and you did a polar shot over Russia, youd have to let them so so that they would not freak out. Esp with thier reduced detection capacities these days.

Very true. But that is where enhanced range would be great - it would allow for trajectories that don't overfly as many other countries.

Actually what about a Ohio class sub equiped not with Tomahawks but non nuclear Tridents?

Originally posted by Starwars50
Very true. But that is where enhanced range would be great - it would allow for trajectories that don't overfly as many other countries.

uh... hate to say it, but it would still have to overfly other countries. the extended range just means it could either fly higher over them, or just fly over more to get to a target that's farther away.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
uh... hate to say it, but it would still have to overfly other countries. the extended range just means it could either fly higher over them, or just fly over more to get to a target that's farther away.

But if it allows you to avoid countries that have ICBM's it would be a plus. Who cares if say Yemen pitches a fit

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by Starwars50
Very true. But that is where enhanced range would be great - it would allow for trajectories that don't overfly as many other countries.

uh... hate to say it, but it would still have to overfly other countries. the extended range just means it could either fly higher over them, or just fly over more to get to a target that's farther away.

Not neccisarily. Depending on how powerful the booster is you can reach just about ever country with access to an ocean without flying over any other country.

And as FredT said, would cares if Yemen or Thailand whine about an overflight. They probably wouldn't even know the exact flight path until we told them...

When someone launches a missile every body knows, but what scares me is the fact you could put a nuke in a torpedo and nobody would know untill it hit "a" coast.

Originally posted by double down
When someone launches a missile every body knows, but what scares me is the fact you could put a nuke in a torpedo and nobody would know untill it hit "a" coast.

Yea it is a problem. Esp in a busy port. like Oakland or Long Beach. Thats why you still see the P-3 Orions flying or the Boeing MMA in the future. I started a thread on the MMA as well. Its a pretty cool plane

[edit on 5-7-2004 by FredT]

Originally posted by FredT
But if it allows you to avoid countries that have ICBM's it would be a plus. Who cares if say Yemen pitches a fit

yeah, but in the sense of the government what would they do? use the longer, more expensive, but "less dangerous" to another country with ICBMs route? or, use the shorter, more direct, less expensive, but "more dangerous" to other countries route? my guess is that they would go with option 2.

also, who's to say that the nuke isn't still going to another country, say russia. with an extended range, it could be launched and programmed to come from the south or some other seemingly odd direction. just because it's taking a dofferent flight path, which may seem weird, other nuclear capable countries may see it as a threat.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
yeah, but in the sense of the government what would they do? use the longer, more expensive, but "less dangerous" to another country with ICBMs route? or, use the shorter, more direct, less expensive, but "more dangerous" to other countries route? my guess is that they would go with option 2.

I think it would have to depend on the countries the missile would overfly and the time and priority to reach the target. This alone may make it an impracticle weapon. If you have to wait for permisssion to overfly a country the taget of oppurtunity may not exist. However, how much of the balistic missiles flight time is in "space" If its floating in space at the top of its arc, is it an invasion of a countries airspace. I don't think so, but who knows. In as far as the direct route being more expensive, maybe in a political sence, but the missiles are a one shot deal anyway.
If we were going to nuke Russia, I can't think of a reason to take a longer or different route, any launch is going to get attention from everybody. The interesting range posses several guestions. If between the SLBM and the ICBM's is the govenment is expecting to loose the SLBM's in the future? And is this an attmpt to compensate for thier ability to move closer to targets that the MinutemanIII can't hit today?