| From: | Slipspeed atreloar@*********.com |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Naval Military Might (Submarines and Drone Fighters) |
| Date: | Sat, 17 Jul 1999 14:22:48 +1000 |
>
> > Hmmm...this is an interesting consideration. Question folks .... though
it
> > would be HUGELY expensive, what kind of space is say, an ICBM as
compared to
> > a Wadjina? Could a Wadjina be converted to have "pop-out" wings and
such?
> > What kind of control interface relay would you need to have this all
work?
>
> That might work, but in a "more bang for your buck" vein, you'd be
> better off refitting your old boomers with sub-launched cruise missiles.
> For instance, you can fit at least 4 tomahawk or harpoon vertical
> launch tubes in the same diameter filled by 1 trident ICBM tube (you may
> be able to get 7 in a classic hex pattern, but I'd have to check the
> physical dimensions again). Further, you can stack at least one reload
> vertically beneath your main launch tubes.
Again with the specs in front of me...
General Dynamics BGM-109 Tomahawk
Dimensions: length 6.4m (21 ft 0 in), diameter 53.3cm (1 ft 9 in)
McDonnell Douglas UGM-84A Harpoon
Dimensions: length 4.628m (15.2 ft), diameter 34.3cm (13.5 in)
Given the dimensions for the Trident I C4 that I gave in my other post, you
can see that only the Harpoon could have a reload stack below it, *IF* such
an idea was considered... Most sub commanders would quail at the thought of
a warhead being less than 5 feet from the rocket exhaust of a launching
Harpoon. I know *I* would, particularly as the second layer is supposed to
be a reload layer, and therefore must be passed up to be launched. : )
I'll let you figure out how many you can squeeze in one Trident tube,
though. : )
> Now your basic Ohio-class sub has 24 Trident ICBM tubes. That
> translates to anywhere from 96 to 168 tomahawks or harpoons inbound in a
> very short amount of time. Give a minute or so to go through the reload
> cycle and you have another 96 to 168 missiles on the fly. From *one* sub.
See above... Particularly as it only takes you a minute to cycle the reload
missile. : )
Assuming it was done, yes, I can see just about any Surface Task Force
Commander would be worried, though. : )
Nevermind anyone within 160 km of shore (range of a Harpoon, make it 460km
if it was a Tomahawk B or C).
<snip>
> And that says nothing of the ability to project power over land.
> If the US could conceivably have that many missiles sitting off the coast
> of your country *without you knowing it*, you may be less belligerant.
> The ability to make good on a diplomatic threat instantanously,
> powerfully, and by surprise is a pretty potent tool for getting what you
> want.
> Honestly, I'm not sure why the USNavy hasn't looked into it
> seriously. As a force multiplier, a reconfigured boomer would be an
> excellent addition to the Navy's capabilities.
The Navy probably hasn't looked into it because they haven't been told to.
: )
In any case, however, it would probably be prohibitively expensive. What
with refitting the launch tubes, changing firing control mechanisms,
testing, fixing bugs in the idea, more testing, fixing more bugs, testing,
and then outfitting other subs that way... I'm sure there's a fair bit I
missed too. And all of this is to happen today, when the American Military
is finding it harder and harder to justify all it's expensive "toys"?Sorry,
I don't see it happening.
Slipspeed
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scattered showers my ass... - Noah
Adam Treloar aka Guardian, Slipspeed
atreloar@*********.com
http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1900/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
