So with the 500 km - 5,500 km range Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty being dead since February 1-2, 2019 the US has already test-launched medium range cruise missiles from ground platforms.
But what of:
- the perfectly good Pershing II designs and hardware that were eliminated in 1991. Can the US
develop "Pershing IIIs" (noting some coast-based ASBMs suggestions). Maybe deploy Pershing III
as anti-ship (on continental US coasts, Hawaii, Midway Island, Guam, Diego Garcia) and where
relevant land attack versions (in Alaska, even Singapore?) as an answer to China's famous
DF-21Ds and DF-26s.
- longer than 500 km range future versions of the US MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile
System (ATacMS) as an answer to the likely 500+km range of Russia's Iskander-M variant of the
(NATO SS-26 Stone), ground launched versions of Russia's new Kh-47M2 Kinzhal ALBM and
modern variants of the Soviet SS-20.
: Maybe for ATacMS-ER GLBM basing in NATO central-eastern European countries.
Any other eligible intermediate-range US missiles out there?
2. There's a whole range of modern technologies that could improve on old INF Treaty terminated
1991 missiles. This includes:
- vastly more accurate guidance for DF-21D style changes of course and more accurate
(3 meter?) CEPs,
- more stealth and decoy measures,
- improved rocket fuels for longer range per kg propellant,
- ramjets, and
- lighter, stronger, composite material booster casings for longer range.
Any other ballistic missile improvement technologies?
Pete
But what of:
- the perfectly good Pershing II designs and hardware that were eliminated in 1991. Can the US
develop "Pershing IIIs" (noting some coast-based ASBMs suggestions). Maybe deploy Pershing III
as anti-ship (on continental US coasts, Hawaii, Midway Island, Guam, Diego Garcia) and where
relevant land attack versions (in Alaska, even Singapore?) as an answer to China's famous
DF-21Ds and DF-26s.
- longer than 500 km range future versions of the US MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile
System (ATacMS) as an answer to the likely 500+km range of Russia's Iskander-M variant of the
(NATO SS-26 Stone), ground launched versions of Russia's new Kh-47M2 Kinzhal ALBM and
modern variants of the Soviet SS-20.
: Maybe for ATacMS-ER GLBM basing in NATO central-eastern European countries.
Any other eligible intermediate-range US missiles out there?
2. There's a whole range of modern technologies that could improve on old INF Treaty terminated
1991 missiles. This includes:
- vastly more accurate guidance for DF-21D style changes of course and more accurate
(3 meter?) CEPs,
- more stealth and decoy measures,
- improved rocket fuels for longer range per kg propellant,
- ramjets, and
- lighter, stronger, composite material booster casings for longer range.
Any other ballistic missile improvement technologies?
Pete
3 comments:
@Pete:
The fundamental two issues with any medium ranged system are that the US lacks bases that would readily accept such missiles, particularly in Western Europe, and that it lacks the money (or at least the will to spend it) on such weapons development when it has overwhelming sea and air launched superiority. IE, it has a large number of cruise missiles that are air and sea based already such that land based weapons are of fleeting utility.
The only medium ranged weapons the US might consider short term are Tomahawks from a ground launcher. These were already nearly introduced once before and the missile itself is still in production, making adoption relatively cheap and straight forward. If a nuclear version is desired, W80 warheads are fairly plentiful in the US stock pile - the AGM-129s and nuclear BGM-109s were withdrawn and a lot of the AGM-86 fleet was converted to conventional weapons (or CHAMP). Their original warheads remain in storage. Pershing II warheads were instead converted to B-61 mod 10 free fall bombs, as the warhead for that missile was orginally converted from B-61 tactical variants (mod 3 or 4).
In the future the US might consider converting one of its hypersonic projects into ground launched quick response weapon - ARRW or HCSK ('arrow'/'hack saw'). ARRW in particular as a boost/glide system would probably be readily adaptable to ground launch - it vaguely resembles an upper stage of a minuteman ICBM (I personally suspect that is the boost phase's lineage and explains the weapons rather quick development).
Regardless of what weapons are developed, the issue would still be basing - it is unlikely any European country, even Poland, would allow such offensive weapons to be based on their territory. In the Pacific, the US would probably have to base out of Guam, and have something with the appropriate range to cover the 1500+ miles for such basing to be useful.
So in actuality you likely won't see *any* US intermediate missile development, which is why withdrawing from the INF was a pointless exercise for the Trump administration.
Cheers,
Josh
@Pete:
The one thing that the US will do is extend the range of the MGM-140 replacement (precision strike missile) as you noted - this is a system that already is being fast tracked with funding and apparently both competitors for the contract indicate they could push the range further than the original specification. But the small size of the projectile (four per GMLS system, two for HIMARS) probably will prevent the final range from being significantly over 500km.
Cheers,
Josh
Hi Josh
Thanks for you comments.
I've just responded at https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2019/09/existing-us-missile-becoming.html pointing to (apparent steps in progress) to develop the MGM-140 ATacMS as an anti-ship intermediate range missile.
Regards
Pete
Post a Comment