In
the previous post, a reader brought up the possibility of Intermediate Range
Ballistic Missiles (IRBM) as an A2/AD weapon.
I had considered mentioning them, specifically, in the post but opted
not to because I feared they would bog the discussion down and obscure the more
general topic. However, now that it’s
been brought up, let’s look a bit closer at IRBMs in the context of A2/AD.
The
Chinese, of course, have developed IRBMs for various uses including the so
called “carrier killer”, the DF-21. This
IRBM has generated much press coverage due to its combination of lethality and
survivability. A ballistic missile is a
difficult weapon to counter. Indeed, the
USN is expending a great deal of money and effort in the attempt to defend
against these weapons. The entire Burke
class is being modified to counter ballistic missiles. Lethality and survivability are two of the characteristics
that would be highly useful in an A2/AD penetration scenario. Thus, a US IRBM would seem to meet the needs
for a weapon with extremely long range, massive destructive ability, and
survivability.
Of
course, this immediately brings up the first objection to the use of IRBMs and
that is the possibility of misinterpreting a conventional ballistic missile as
a nuclear strike missile. I’ll pause a
moment, now, to allow some of you to finish wailing, gnashing your teeth, and
wringing your hands in hysteria. I can
hear you saying we can’t use an IRBM – the Chinese would assume we were
launching a nuclear attack and it would mean instant nuclear Armageddon.
Take
a deep breath …
OK,
you did note the previous paragraph where we noted that the Chinese have
already developed their own IRBMs and, apparently, have every intention of
using them. They, clearly, aren’t
worried about us misinterpreting their usage so why should we worry about their
reaction? Well, some would answer that their
missiles are incapable of reaching the US and so could not be a nuclear threat
to us whereas ours could reach their soil and could constitute a nuclear
threat. Hogwash! First, their missiles can reach US carriers
which are sovereign US territory and they can reach bases such as Guam which,
again, are US territories. Second, if
the Chinese are that concerned about nuclear misinterpretation, all they have
to do is enter into an agreement with the US to ban IRBMs – clearly they have
no concerns. So, there is no problem
with using IRBMs.
Moving
on …
What
platform would launch an IRBM? Two
candidates come to mind. One is the
submarine with it’s attendant benefits of survivability and stealth and the
other is a surface ship with either the newer and larger Mk57 VLS (currently
only installed on the Zumwalt, as I recall) or a new, purpose built launch system, presumably a VLS variant similar to an SSBN launch tube.
The
Mk57 VLS is a larger version of the venerable Mk41 and is intended to accommodate
future, larger missiles. The canister is
around 23 ft long and 28 inches in diameter and can support around a 9000 pound
load. Whether this is sufficient to
house an IRBM developed for the A2/AD scenario, I don’t know. Remember, a 1000-2000 mile conventional IRBM
is probably a significantly different beast from an ICBM. Can we build one to fit existing VLS
systems? I don’t know.
Cost
is an issue and I have no idea what the cost of a suitable tactical IRBM would
be and, thus, what the cost-value relationship would be.
Numbers
are also an issue and are closely related to cost. Can we build enough missiles to be
effective? Presumably, these missiles
would be tasked with destruction of fixed, high value targets. How many such targets are there and how many
missiles would be required for their destruction? Again, I don’t know.
It
would seem that IRBMs offer a partial solution to the A2/AD penetration
requirement, at least in theory. Whether
we could build them in sufficient numbers and come up with a suitable launch
system is an open question although nothing I’ve read suggests we couldn’t. Certainly, the very characteristics of
lethality and survivability that make defending against an IRBM such a headache
for the Navy suggest that they would make an effective offensive weapon against
an A2/AD zone.
I do not believe that the IRBM is as big a threat as some people make it out to be. The V2 for example suffered from cost as well. So you cannot have that many - or if you do there's a big opportunity cost.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is that you still have to find the carrier group and steer the IRBM accurately (it's very hard to steer a ballistic missile at those velocities - ICBMs historically were used mostly to target fixed bases, which is why submarines were so dangerous).
That is not to say that carriers are not in deep danger. Submarines, better anti-ship missiles, and other weapons are making very rapid advancements. The other is that the aircraft the USN uses are short-legged compared to the what the competition has.
Fixed airfields is another matter and even a miss that craters part of an airfield could render it not usable, which during a war is critical.
The other question I have is, if you are planning to launch IRBMs back, what targets are you planning? It would have to be very high value indeed.
Alt, note that I've focused this discussion on our use of IRBMs as A2/AD penetration aids. Your points about the use of IRBMs against mobile targets (carriers) are quite valid, of course.
DeleteRegarding your question about what targets would be assigned IRBMs, it would be high value, fixed targets that contribute to the defense of the A2/AD zone. So, airbases, IRBM launch sites, naval bases, fuel storage locations, submarine "pens", mine storage locations, etc.
You would need a lot of IRBMs to do it though - China has a lot of airfields and they are often underground (and more heavily protected) than American airfields.
Deletehttp://ausairpower.net/APA-2011-01.html
I suspect that China will have more in the coming decades.
Depends all on strategy. You don't necessarily need to destroy the bunkers, littering the actual runways with mines would just as quickly shutdown the airbase.
DeleteThere shouldn't be any technical reason why SSBN class missile launchers couldn't be mounted in launcher groups aboard a surface vessel.
ReplyDeleteWho cares what it costs. Build a hundred fewer F-35's. The bigger questions are, what should the surface vessel (or vessels) look like, what kinds of missiles are allowed to be carried in the launchers, and what doctrines and policy apply to their use?
The last part of your question, essentially asking about ROE, is quite pertinent. It does no good to build IRBMs and associated ship/sub launch platforms and then balk at using them. We need to establish,
Delete1. The willingness to use them and,
2. The conditions under which we will use them along with a candidate target list.
Having committed to the first, the conditions for use will devolve to simple tactical considerations. When a suitable tactical advantage can be gained ... launch.
For once I an going to agree with you, the USN could should the Tactical IRBM as part of an A2/AD fight. The only limitations I see is any existing arms control treaty. Still It should be possible to build missile with a range of 300 miles that can fit into a MK57 launcher crate. One Thing I would avoid would be going for extended range or large payloads. Keep It Simple Stupid should be our guiding principle in developing such a weapon.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSmitty,
DeleteThe Chinese are planning to fire DF-21 missiles at U.S. and allied forces in the 1st island chain: how is the problem any different?
How do the Chinese expect us to differentiate between a anti-ship DF-21D and a nuclear DF-21C?
GAB
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSmitty, so you're OK with China lobbing nukes at our territories, bases, and forces while we unilaterally limit ourselves to conventional weapons? Now that's fighting with one hand tied behind your back!
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSmitty, do you seriously believe that the US will allow China to lob nukes at us without retaliating in kind? This is the basis of the old MAD doctrine. The onus to avoid nuclear conflict lies just as much with China as us. If China doesn't want to have to deal with incoming IRBMs then they need to curtail their own IRBM program.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAgain, so you propose ignoring an entire class of potentially highly effective weapons because China might be worried about them?! I think the point of weapon systems is to cause the other side to worry. Again, if China feels the risk is too great they have only to curtail their own IRBM program.
DeleteWe're going to have to leave this one as a disagreement.
For info: The Pershing II of 1980s vintage weighed @16500lbs, was almost 35 feet long, 40 inches in diameter, carried a 880 lb "dial-a-yield" nuclear warhead and had a range of 1100 miles. Might be some engineering challenges fitting a useful IRBM in a Mk 57 VLS
ReplyDeleteThe ATACMS MGM-168 is 24 inches in diameter, 13 feet long, and carries a 500 lb unitary warhead. It has a range of 300 km to stay within the limits of the MTCR.
ReplyDeleteA booster or a longer first stage could easily carry a 1,000 lb warhead 300 km.
And its highly likely that the existing 300km is not a real technical limitation as well. Given an almost 2x increase in length, it should be possible to do a 500kg warhead with a range >>300km.
DeleteOkay.
ReplyDeleteI agree in part and dissent in part.
I agree in the sense that we have to do something to at least have the ability to deter the Chinese; and that our previous discussion involving cruise missiles launched against the A2/AD isn't that much different in terms of scary scenarios (150 nuclear capable TLAMS heading your way is a plenty scary way of poking the nuclear bear, IMHO).
That said... IRBM's seem to be an especially useful, and for that reason, especially scary weapon.
Especially when we are dealing with a CCP politburo that is kind of riding the capitalist tiger and is a bit jealous and scared for its power to begin with.
IMHO, yes, we should build them. Maybe modify something for the SSGN's or the Block III Virginia's, which IIRC has a bigger VLS diameter...
but at the same time we should start talks with the Chinese to ban IRBM's. Yes, they lose a potential huge weapon with the DF21... but they also lose alot of risk if we have something there.
Just my $0.02
As the village idiot who keeps beating the ballistic missile drum; a few points:
ReplyDelete1. The ideal range for a U.S. MRBM or IRBM is 1,200-1,500nm – a map and compass will demonstrate the utility of this range.
2. The missile would ideally be capable of launch from a Virginia payload module.
3. The Pershing II is a good place holder for the desired size and capability – obviously it would have to be navalized, and its svelte length and girth adjusted, but it sets a good bench mark.
4. A unitary explosive warhead is probably the *least* useful warhead for the mission, and probably not needed – at Mach 8+ the kinetic energy from the impact of this weapon would be awesome. Suitable warheads for the missile would be: 1) area effect (could be bomblets, or cubicle shaped ceramics), and 2) an armor piercing or concrete penetrating warhead for bunker busting.
5. The missile should be employed not just by naval forces but also the army in the form of mobile launches (again, the MGM-31 sets the bench mark). Even a dozen batteries would greatly complicate the strategic planning of NK and the PRC; which is exactly what we want a weapon like this to do.
GAB
A good defense suppression warhead would be a load of guided antiradar submunitions. For real fun set off 10,000 ft. above an AEW aircraft's orbit.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteCorrect me if I'm wrong but China is not a signatory to the INF treaty, are they?
DeleteChina also does not have much of a reputation for honoring treaties which makes one wonder why we would go out of our way to honor a treaty benefiting them and to which they are not a party?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete"I'm not sure an inert warhead would be good enough for destroying deeply buried targets. Penetrating bombs rely on generating sufficient overpressure, generated by HE, in confined areas to destroy whatever is in them. I'm not sure inert warheads would do the same. Maybe they would."
Delete===============================================
I am not sure where the concept of an "inert warhead" came from: I said that a "unitary explosive warhead" was the least useful.
That said, a 1,000 kg metal shell moving at Mach 8+ speeds would be a devastating weapon, rivaling a small nuclear device in destructiveness.
The CRS report you cited mentioned the effectiveness.
GAB
"Russia is a signatory. We honor the treaty to keep Russia from developing intermediate ranged nuclear weapons."
DeleteFirst, the treaty was between the US and USSR. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is highly debatable that the treaty remains legally in force. Russia was not a signatory. The US has unilaterally opted to act as if Russia was a signatory.
Second, Russia has already violated the treaty (and we may have also) and declared the treaty void, stating that it was not in their best interests.
"First, the treaty was between the US and USSR. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, it is highly debatable that the treaty remains legally in force. Russia was not a signatory. The US has unilaterally opted to act as if Russia was a signatory."
DeleteRussia is widely regarded as the legal successor of the USSR. As such, it remains signatory of a lot of treaties, including the INF one.
The nuclear misidentification problem has been solved by the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon program. It uses a glide body rather than a traditional ballistic warhead, this gives it a vastly different radar signature.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.army-technology.com/projects/advanced-hypersonic-weapon-ahw/
Midgetman, you're right that the AHW has a different flight profile and radar signature. On the other hand, there's nothing that would prevent us (or the Chinese who are also developing a AHW) from putting a nuclear warhead on an AHW or a cruise missile (as has been done). Thus, the mere fact that an incoming missile is not a ballistic missile does not mean that it isn't nuclear armed.
DeleteThe only real "protection" against nuclear missiles is some form of MAD.
"the other is a surface ship with either the newer and larger Mk57 VLS (currently only installed on the Zumwalt, as I recall) or a new, purpose built launch system, presumably a VLS variant similar to an SSBN launch tube."
ReplyDeleteI thought that I was so clever thinking of putting Deepstrike missiles on ships. You have been discussing this kind of thing for at least five years now!
I think I'll read more and talk less for a while...