A helpful Defense Tech reader sent this item along to me. Now, Im a bit of a dim bulb, as many of you know, and on this, I think the light was entirely out.
Its been a long time since Ive thought much about intercontinental ballistic missiles especially nuclear-tipped ones. But a knowledgeable reader and helpful tipster — tells me this item is significant.
[From Lockheed Martin]
D5 Fleet Ballistic Missile Launched in Navy Test in the Pacific
SILVERDALE, Wash., November 29th, 2007 — The U.S. Navy conducted a successful test launch today of a Trident II D5 Fleet Ballistic Missile (FBM) built by Lockheed Martin (NYSE: LMT). The Navy launched the unarmed missile from the submerged submarine USS HENRY M JACKSON (SSBN 730) in the Pacific Ocean.
The Trident II D5 missile now has achieved 120 consecutive successful test launches since 1989 a record unmatched by any other large ballistic missile or space launch vehicle.
The missile launch was part of the Demonstration and Shakedown Operation (DASO) to certify USS HENRY M JACKSON for deployment, following a shipyard overhaul period and conversion from Trident I C4 to Trident II D5 configuration.
First deployed in 1990, the D5 missile is currently aboard 12 Trident II Ohio-class submarines and four British Trident II Vanguard-class submarines. The three-stage, solid-propellant, inertial-guided ballistic missile can travel a nominal range of 4,000 nautical miles and carries multiple independently targeted reentry vehicles.
If youre like me, I was sort of wondering why our intrepid source sent me this story. O.K., so another successful test firing of an SLBM. Big deal, right?
Ill respect my sources privacy, but his points make a lot of sense. Heres what he told me:
The significance of the 120th successful launch of the D5 screams volumes as:
1. Successful Defense Program — that is unmatched by other industrialized competitors (for example the Russian Buluva SLBM has failed 7 of its last 10 tests). This is not a Russian hit piece. Its that this success is unmatched even among US systems.
2. Reliable strategic deterrence most countries have a mix of solid and liquid fueled ballistic inventory. So if the US has 18 Ohios, 8 on station all the time. Possibly one within range of your country with 24 tubes with 8 independent targeting warheads that are delivered from a system that is extremely reliable. Even in the mind game world — which is the only one that matters — this is quite a deterrent.
3. If you also think about the fact that the original Trident Missile design, implementation and deployment to the fleet was somewhere close to 2 years, Id say this is an example of a successful defense technology application.
So when this really makes a difference is when you combine it with a better than hokey BMD.
I am inclined to agree. Ive always believed that as the Cold War ended, we could relegate the ground-based missile leg of the strategic triad to the salvage yard of history. Missile silos were used for measurement during the cold war, they could be assessed by satellites to compile strategic accountability, as could bombers to some degree. The Soviets had them, so we had to have them.
But what good do they really do us in this strategic environment? It seems to me at least that you need to keep strategic nuclear bombers because, theyre recallable. But theyre still vulnerable but not as vulnerable as missile silos which cant move.
Sub-based missiles, however, are nearly invulnerable. Few navies in the world have the sophistication or deployment ratio to track U.S. boomers so risk of their discovery and destruction is minimal. I understand that communicating with the subs can be tough, so giving them urgent launch orders may not be as responsive as a ground-based deterrent.
But its tough to think of a scenario where America would need to launch a an all-out strategic strike in response to a nuclear attack on the U.S. particularly in conjunction with a missile defense system.
Wed love to hear our readers thoughts on this.
(Gouge: BD)
Minor detail: 120 launches out of how many? And is this –consecutive– successful launches, or total?
This wouldn’t be news if it wasn’t 120 straight successful launches. Thus, it’s a good assumption that this is 120 out of 120.
It’s also good to know someone still has the wherewithal to realize we still need a nuclear deterrent.
>Possibly one within range of your country with 24 tubes with 8 independent targeting warheads
I thought that START II limited us to 5 MIRV’s per missile.
One thing that we should keep in mind concerning maned Bombers and ICBM’s. They both provide more flexability than SLBM’s. The Minutemen II are currently single tipped and thus could be used to hit a single target of a “rouge state”. The same can be said for maned bombers. When a SLBM is launched there are multiple warheads aboard that have to come down somwhere.
If we cut this program & retired(& scrapped so that “Iran” doesn’t get their hands on them) these missiles,we’d have more money for F-22s.WooHoo!!!!!
Silos are more vulnerable than bomber bases on a one-for-one basis, but there are hundreds of silos for every bomber base. An adversary would need to deliver just a few warheads to take our our bomber bases, but would need to deliver many hundreds of nuclear warheads to defeat our silos.
Presently our SLBMs can provide a survivable retaliatory capability. However they are survivable only as long as they remain undetectable. Should there be a technological breakthrough which makes them detectable, they will no longer be survivable. Given their few numbers they would be at risk.
The silos provide a back-up contingency to that scenario.
Without the silos it would take many years to reconstitute an alternative to the SLBMs if the SLBMs became vulnerable.
Our chances of ever killing the ICBM silo program are pretty minimal. Large programs have vested interests. They are like zombies in a bad horror movie-every time you think it’s dead, it rises from the grave. In this case, however, instead of grabbing you by the ankle, it grabs you by the wallet.
Still, the minuteman should be retired. There are plenty of places those resources could go. I don’t know what teh budget for Minuteman missiles is, but I would suspect it is in the billions with security, maintenence, personnel etc. That would free up a lot of cash (and people) to fund a tanker upgrade or something else…
Yes just reading on a British defense site, it’s 120 launches out of 120 launches.
but each British sub carries no more than 48 missiles (rather than the possible 192) due to Government policy
Just a note of interest the Brits have accounted for a fare share of those launches. As the missiles are pooled (they belong to both the UK and US) when a Brit submarine is due to go on patrol it picks up the missiles from the joint pool in the US, tests fires a missile then heads back to the UK to be fitted with her warheads.
Of course the British carry up to 12 warheads on each missile (to the US max of
A few years ago I talked with an old SAC hand about bombers in the later stages of the Cold War. He said that bombers were the weakest leg of the triad in many scenarios, and here’s why: they are vulnerable to the first wave of SLBMs. SLBMs weren’t accurate enough to threaten fixed silos, but their shorter flight time let them swat any bomber wing which wasn’t on strip or full air alert.
Bombers may be the most flexible of the nuclear triad, but they’re also the most vulnerable. Take it for what it’s worth.
In the meantime, while we haven’t been threatened with SLBM attack for nearly 20 years, it seems a bit rash to say we won’t again in the future. (I’m looking at you, PRC.) The land-based ICBM force could be stood even further down until further notice but the cost of standing it up again in the future make this a questionable proposition at best IMHO.
Giant waste of money. Strategic forces time has passed. This force does nothing about rogue states and proliferation. Our major rivals will not confront us directly, they will confront us via proxies their investment in this conflict will be much less then ours Our strategic forces, ballistic missile defense and our investment in fighter jets, will be financial burdens that have a greater chance of damaging our nation then any external threat.
In reality, the thought of large countries exchanging nukes is and has proven to be insane. I am paraphrasing a Russian General / think-tank dude. His premise, is that Russia is wasting its money on improving their nukes and thinks that precision, sub launched cruise missiles, and land based systems with global strike capability is the wave of the future. He pointed out that the current and expected maturity of US ABM systems, and the likelihood of never exchanging the systems in mass makes the investment not worthwhile.
D5 with conventional warheads (GPS terminal guidance) would be far more useful than nuclear ones. Prompt Global Strike requirement anyone?
My greatest fear about having a conventional warhead on a SLBM or ICBM is that if fired, the global pucker factor goes through the roof. AFAIK, no one but us (and our allies) will know what the warhead is, until it goes BOOM. I can’t imagine that other nuclear armed states would sit idly by during that time, until it is confirmed that it wasn’t a nuke. Too close to letting the genie out of the bottle, IMHO. Too many people playing with gasoline with lit matches in the room.
That being said, I am a FIRM believer in maintaining and keeping the triad working. A three legged table stands better than a two legged one. Yes, each has it’s weaknesses and strengths. That’s the idea of a triad deterrence force. Yes it’s bloody expensive, but it forces the bad guys to either spend a lot of money to counter it, or leave themselves vulerable. IMHO it would be utterly stupid to get rid of ANY part of the triad. Just because they haven’t been used, doesn’t mean much. In reality, they are made so that they NEVER have to be used in anger. If so, then they DID THEIR JOB. I pray to God that no nuke ever has to go off again (especially in anger), but if the balloon goes up, that’s one part of our military that I hope and pray is still at the cutting edge of quality, reliability and effectiveness.
Absolutely, we need conventional forces, and true, nukes aren’t exactly useful when fighting insurgents. But there are more than enough bad guys in the world, and some of them have access to the big bombs. I’d much rather have them worried about us nuking them three separate ways than them thinking that maybe they could get away with a nuke strike.
The triad has worked wonderfully. Don’t mess with success. And if you want global strike, then do that via some other program besides a system that sets off every warning buzzer in every capitol around the world.
The less itchy the “button-fingers” get, the better.
Impressive numbers, not failing since ’89, it comes to mind mind russian soyuz hasn’t failed since… err… last 35 plus years?. Comparing the trident to the bulava, that’s really silly, the bulava is in development and the trident is deployed, bulava hasn’t reached even 10 development tests yet. Every missile goes tests before deployment, once deployed it will go through reliability tests, which is the case of the trident.
I think I must stop reading DT’s propaganda
That’s an excellent performance record for the D-5. Now, if the warhead works as well…
I could be very wrong, but isn’t the distinction between SLBM and ICBM that the former is a Second strke weapon while the later is a First strike weapon? If I’m correct, that is a huge distinction.
I agree that a conventional ware head with GPS terminal guidance would be advantageous. Add to the “who-knows” factor.
Add to that the Boomers capability excel in all theaters — underwater, over land, atmosphere & outer space.
120 consecutive successful tests! That’s a program that works.
“I agree that a conventional ware head with GPS terminal guidance would be advantageous.“
“D5 with conventional warheads (GPS terminal guidance) would be far more useful than nuclear ones. Prompt Global Strike requirement anyone?“
Err yes, good idea — except that every other tooled-up nation in the world would think that we’d launched a nuke at them and would have their birds in the air going in the opposite direction…
Oh yes, trust us, that SLBM/ICBM we just launched doesn’t really have a nuke aboard, we swear, its just delivering presents for Santa… what you don’t trust us Mr Jong-il/Mr Putin/Ms Patil/Mr Musharraf??!!??
You can’t just look at the performance numbers when you maintain a nuclear deterrent. Each leg of the triad has its strengths and weaknesses. The SLBM weakness is in its command and control and specifically its Positive Control (or lack thereof). In order to be survivable, they had to give up certain aspects of Positive Control which the land based triad system had (for example, positive authentication of EWO orders). In a nuclear first strike on the CONUS scenario, if all the nuclear C3 systems are taken out, the SLBMs could still launch in the absence of NCA orders if both the captain and the XO of the sub cannot make their regular contact with fleet HQ and STRATCOM. Now, this was the way I understood it when I was in SAC some 20 years ago, and I don’t know if they’ve upgraded the C3 systems for SLBMs to ensure total positive control. But I would doubt it as that would only ensure a successful decapitation scenario.
wr said.
Silos are more vulnerable than bomber bases on a one-for-one basis, but there are hundreds of silos for every bomber base. An adversary would need to deliver just a few warheads to take our our bomber bases, but would need to deliver many hundreds of nuclear warheads to defeat our silos.
The US has had and willcontinue to use dispersal bases (DB’s) for the bombers. Each DB holds 2–3-4 bombers, which are dispersed there on authority of the NCA. The dispersal bases aklso are not consistent, so there is some guess work involved in the enemies targeting. So instead of needing a (small) handfull of warheads to take out the bomber bases an enemy would need 50 — 60 and the knowledge of which bases are being used. if that knowldge is not there then more warheads would be necisary.
>The US has had and will continue to use dispersal bases (DB’s) for the bombers.<
But these are useful only if the bombers are dispersed before the incoming strike. It takes a long time to generate the bombers.
The principle of dispersal is based on taking action during an escalating crisis. At some point the crisis gets to the point where we decide to disperse. If our adversary pulls the trigger prior to us making that decision, our planes are toast. We wouldn’t have enough time to get one plane loaded.
Also, in the scenario where we get rid of ICBMs and somehow lose our SLBMs to a transparent ocean, we don’t want to fall back on only bombers (even if they are successfully dispersable). Bombers have lots of problems covering the spectrum of targets.
I believe the weakest part of my earlier explanation of why we keep silos is that any country with the capability to take out our SLBMs is likely to have the capability to take our our silos too — Russia and China. Fortunately, these countries tend to be rational actors.
wr–
Correct, the problem with dispersal is getting caught with our pants down. In the current climate, that appears to be a very,very unlikely event. If tensions where to increase with a country that has significant nuclear forces, then we could revert back to our cold war operating regime.
Further, my attempt to defend the bombers should in no waybe construed as an offensive against the IC’s and SL’s. All three of the weapons offer important deterent capabillities.
“so giving them urgent launch orders may not be as responsive as a ground-based deterrent.“
That’s the official reason given now. The old reason was that SLBM’s were inaccurate– only good for city busting. That’s been fixed.
The REAL reason is to keep the USAF part of the pie– keep bases open, etc.
The bomber force is just silly– the only way those bombers would have gotten to Soviet targets were if ICBM’s/SLBM’s had already wrecked their defenses.
Someone wrote that a three legged stool is better than a two legged stool– yeah, so what. My car only has four wheels — not six, or eight– hey I could drive a tank and never worry about flats or fender benders. I can’t afford a tank and the triad is fat that an in-the-red –budget can cut.
>The bomber force is just silly– the only way those bombers would have gotten to Soviet targets were if ICBM’s/SLBM’s had already wrecked their defenses.
Uhh, the B-2 would do just fine thank you, although some IADS suppresion wouldnt hurt. ANd the B-52 just carries cruise missiles to the fight.
The article is incorrect. The US Navy only operates 14 Trident SLBM submarines. When one detail is wrong…
Frank Shuler
USA
>the B-2 would do just fine thank you<
Or maybe not.
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/12/so-long-stealth.html
wr–
saw that, Aint to worried. A lot of people seem to get worked up about this sort of thing from time to time. Lets just say that the folks whose lives are at stake with this stuff dont seem to be to concerned.
DECAPITATION SCENARIO might just be my new band name!
i think it might be worth the promt global strike to sacrifice the SLMBs. but i guess no nation would ever give up SLBMs, being the most utterly destructive overkill option on the table.
1. Congratulations to the LMT and USN teams. The real winners are the free people of the world. The enduring value of the triad is primarily deterrence via optimal flexibilty of response. While “MAD”, may have evolved into just “AD” now, the outcome is the same–no nuclear weapons have been used in combat since 1945.
2. For what it’s worth on an older news point, the loaded ACMs inadvertently carried on a B-52 this year caused me no consternation. What better platform & team to carry the ACM? Granted, when handling any firearm, it’s always best to check the chamber first…
Merry Christmas all!
Jay,
It wouldn’t do any good to give up the SLBMs. Nobody is going to believe that you took out the nukes. The problem with using Tridents as a prompt global strike weapon is that everyone is afraid you’re lying to them, and that you stuck in some nukes. Even if you make a big show of removing nuclear warheads, no one is really going to believe that you don’t have a few tucked away for good measure (because it would be the smart thing to do). The fact that we CAN launch SLBMs means everyone believes that any Trident that launches WILL be an SLBM.
Actually, I guess a Trident, even conventionally loaded, is by definition an SLBM. What I meant was since we CAN launch nuclear tipped SLBMs, the world will assume any Trident launched will BE a nuclear tipped SLBM.
Our strategic competitors also feel that this article is incorrect:
…Although the article does not say the US operates 18 Ohio’s and by stating there are 18 boats is misleading.
– Two have been converted (SSGN)
– Two to go
– Two on hot reserve
…they emphasized that none one of the 154 Tomahawk’s are nukes and the Navy would never expedite a refit of the cruise missile launcher with the D5 or earlier Tridents.
Point well taken
hey brian, you are quite obviously right on this one. i was briefly trying to imagine what sort of diplomatic situation would allow for all countries to agree to give up sub-nukes in order to allow for a more practical use of those amazing boats.
it never ceases to amaze me that the world’s most destructive weapon functions best when never activated.
okay, how about every country in the world gets to keep a nuke in their embassies in another country’s capitals. that way, you could nuke anyone you wanted, but they could also immediately nuke you back. you wouldn’t need ANY of those table legs in order to have reliable MAD.
… i guess you’d need a REALLY reliable way to tell who set it off …
maybe not the best idea …
hey brian, you are quite obviously right on this one. i was briefly trying to imagine what sort of diplomatic situation would allow for all countries to agree to give up sub-nukes in order to allow for a more practical use of those amazing boats.
it never ceases to amaze me that the world’s most destructive weapon functions best when never activated.
okay, how about every country in the world gets to keep a nuke in their embassies in another country’s capitals. that way, you could nuke anyone you wanted, but they could also immediately nuke you back. you wouldn’t need ANY of those table legs in order to have reliable MAD.
… i guess you’d need a REALLY reliable way to tell who set it off …
maybe not the best idea …
oops!
sorry!
A few thoughts.
1. Triad isn’t going anywhere, for some of the reasons hinted at here.
Minuteman III is modernized through 2020, and probably beyond. A lot of it is “sunk” cost, so they’re actually the cheapest leg of the Triad at this point.
One reason you want ICBMs isn’t just because someone may find a way to discover your submarines– the missiles or warheads they carry may not always be reliable. Having two types of missiles– MMIII and D5– provides you with assurance that if one fleet goes down for problems/accuracy/reliability concerns, the other doesn’t.
Another reason was hinted at here: 500 silos vs. 2 Trident bases. A handful of nukes can take out hundreds of SLBM warheads tied up at the pier, while it takes a minmum of 500– more realistically, 1000+– warheads to guarantee that you’ve taken out the silos. If for nothing else, having the silos out there in the middle of nowhere allows us to “soak up” adversary warheads in a counterforce strike– every warhead dedicated to a silo is a warhead that’s NOT targeted at a city or conventional military base.
2. RE: conventional ballistic missile, conventional Trident is, pardon the pun, dead in the water. STRATCOM loved the idea, but there’s no viable way around the launch verification issues (you can’t prove that we DIDN’T launch a nuke from an Ohio). The solution, if there ever is one, will likely come from having one or more fixed land-based CBM firing sites that can be easily monitored, perhaps in person, by other nuclear powers. Alas, even then, if the missile looks like a nuke (same trajectory as an ICBM/SLBM), it’s going to be difficult convincing folks that it’s conventional (hence why other concepts, such as FALCON/Common Aero Vehicle, might be better– different trajectory, it doesn’t *look* like an ICBM).
The article is correct if it is only speaking of the missile, itself. There have been launch system malfunctions, including a Hangfire on the USS Louisiana.