Newsgroup: it.cultura.militare
Titolo: MMMhhh interessante... ma a cosa servirebbe?

A mio parere l'unico utilizzo sensato di icbm convenzionali sarebbe quello
di "carrier buster".
STRATEGIC NUCLEAR WEAPONS: Non-Nuclear ICBMs
February 11, 2004: U.S. Air Force Space Command is trying to make a case for
the deployment and use of conventionally armed ballistic missiles. In a
recently released roadmap laying out the future of the Air Force's
intercontinental ballistic missile force, a number of existing Minuteman
IIIs would be upgraded to an "Elite" version with improved accuracy. Given
"Peacekeeper-like" accuracy with enhanced RVs (Re-entry Vehicles, as
warheads are called), a conventional ICBM (C-ICBM) could strike a target
anywhere on the globe on short notice within 30 to 35 minutes and without
the headaches of basing rights. And as one would expect, the U.S. Navy is
currently re-examining the role of the SLBM Trident and expects to deploy
accuracy upgrades to allow it to be used in a conventional role.
However, there are numerous barriers to such use, not the least the
potential for a C-ICBM launch to be mistaken by Russia or China as a nuclear
strike. Advocates argue that conventional missiles would be launched in
smaller numbers and clearly headed in different directions. Russia and other
nations might be notified in advance of an impending C-ICBM launch. To
further avoid confusion, conventional launches would most likely conducted
from existing Air Force test range facilities at Vandenberg and Cape
Canaveral, according to various documents - as well as to limit potential
collateral damage from falling boosters. Both ranges could be open to
international inspection to verify conventional payloads. Overflight rights
have also been cited as a potential political headache, but the high
trajectory and descent path of a payload may make such arguments somewhat
moot.
Expense is another issue likely to come up for consideration. According to
the Air Force, Minuteman III has a list price of $7 million per round before
upgrades and a conventional munitions program. Add to that the cost of a few
R&D test shots to make sure everything works as expected. Currently, the Air
Force is developing a Common Aero-Vehicle (CAV), an aerodynamically designed
re-entry vehicle with maneuvering capability for increased range and
accuracy that will dispense submunitions, for use both with the C-ICBM and a
future space plane. Payloads under consideration for the CAV include three
250 lb small smart bombs, six 90 lb powered LOCAAS (Low Cost Autonomous
Attack System) munitions, a hard and deeply buried target (HDBT) penetrator,
a deployable unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) Hunter/Killer package, an agent
defeat payload, and other special (non-nuclear) weapon payloads.
Another interesting bookkeeping headache is that C-ICBMs would count against
START totals despite being retrofitted with conventional munitions.
Currently, the United States has 500 Minuteman IIIs on alert and is
investing $6 billion to improve accuracy and reliability and to extend its
service life beyond 2020. C-ICBMs would count against such numbers, but
there seems to be little resistance within the Pentagon given the relatively
limited numbers involved.
The updated roadmap calls for deployment of the first Minuteman Elites by
2011 with a new ICBM to follow in 2018. The replacement ICBM, sometimes
referred to as the Minuteman IV, would be designed from the ground up for
both nuclear and conventional missions, and be designed to deploy a single
reentry vehicle with a throw weight of 2,000 pounds over 7,500 nautical
miles with accuracy equal or better than Peacekeeper. It, or parts of it,
could also see use incorporated into an ABM system and to launch small
payloads into orbit.
Proposals for converting ballistic missiles to a conventional role have been
floated since the mid-90s, when Lockheed proposed putting Polaris or Trident
missiles armed with kinetic energy munitions = bundles of tungsten rods)
into hardened bunkers in Europe targeted at Warsaw Pack airfields.
Hypersonic cruise missiles would be a more politically correct solution for
time-critical targeting, but engineering headaches still remain before an
affordable and deployable solution is available. - Doug Mohney

 quello di "carrier buster".
Se ricordi se ne era già parlato un'anno fa quando erano apparsi i primi
articoli sulle Small Diameter Bomb nei quali si indicava come la Boeing
avesse progettato l'arma considerando pure un impiego come payload per
C-ICBM.
Al costo di 7 milioni di dollari (come detto nell'articolo) + il costo del
payload è un modo tremendamente cost effective per far fuori sistemi SAM da
qualche centinaio di milioni.
Non esiste un sistema SAM in grado di fermare un ICBM, a meno di non voler
impegnarsi in sistemi da miliardi di dollari come il GBI americano. (e sul
quale comqunque al momento non vi sono certezze di funzionamento)
Anche l'idea dell'impiego contro portaerei non è male; però mi parrebbe
strano che una cosa del genere sia venuta in mente a chi possiede circa il
75% delle portaerei oggi al mondo......vabbeh, forse proprio perchè le hanno
sanno bene come farle fuori ;-)

 forse proprio perchè le hanno sanno bene come farle fuori ;-)
Si infatti stavo per aggiungere che era oltremodo stupido che i principali
possessori di portaerei si mettano a distruggere le navi dell'avversario con
icbm. Solo chi vorrà sfidare il dominio marittimo degli USA forse svilupperà
armi di quel genere.

 degli USA forse svilupperà armi di quel genere.
Beh, tanto stupida come idea in fin dei conti non è. Supponi di poter far
fuori le capital ship (magari eventuali DDG o CG per la difesa aerea) della
marina avversaria con un paio di C-ICBM, poi puoi lasciare il resto agli
Hornet con minori rischi di perdere aerei.