WI: Anti-Ship Ballistic Missiles in the '80s

[asnys]

So the Chinese are allegedly working on these things, at least if you believe the Pentagon. But the idea goes back to the '70s.

I recently read a monograph on alleged Soviet efforts to detect submarines using satellites. I'm mostly skeptical of the author's claims, but she does mention some interesting ideas about using ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads to target surface ships (and, potentially, submarines), which were circulating among at least some members of the Soviet naval staff. The big problem with China's alleged ASBM effort is how to guide the weapon to the ship; the Russian idea was to get around that by using a nuclear warhead - a big one - and by firing enough missiles to saturate all the possible places the target could move between launch and landing. This would place a premium on using submarines as launch platforms, since they could be closer to the target, which would both reduce the time the target has to dodge and allow you to use smaller, cheaper missiles.

The main obstacles to making this work would be timing: you need to locate the target, transmit that information to the launch platform, program the missiles, and fire, in a short time frame. That's a tall order, especially if your launch platform is a submarine.

Naval stuff isn't really my forte, so what do y'all think? Could either the Americans or (more likely) the Soviets put something like this together in the '80s, and if they could, what impact would it have on naval strategy and procurement?
​

 

[Puzzle]

Would they be worth it during the cold war? Currently the US Navy is so far beyond the Chinese one that all avenues are worth exploring. However during the cold war it seems that if any ballistic missile was launched both arsenals would be in the air shortly.

Hypothetically the Chinese in a future war could launch one at a US carrier and it might not lead to complete nuclear immolation but the Soviets probably couldn't count on the same.

 

[asnys]

Would they be worth it during the cold war? Currently the US Navy is so far beyond the Chinese one that all avenues are worth exploring. However during the cold war it seems that if any ballistic missile was launched both arsenals would be in the air shortly.

Hypothetically the Chinese in a future war could launch one at a US carrier and it might not lead to complete nuclear immolation but the Soviets probably couldn't count on the same.

I gather the Soviets' idea was to use the trick to defend submarine bastions in a protracted nuclear war.

 

[Saphroneth]

The scale of the problem increases as the targeting time increases.
Basically you have to saturate a target area equal to a circle the size of the area the carrier could have moved at full power - let's take the Nimitz.
31.5 knots.


Now, let's assume for a moment you have a submarine launch platform - a Typhoon?
That's 20 missiles.

Owing to how circle packing works, that's basically able to produce a pattern of 17 missiles roughly describing a circle a little under five times the radius where the nuke on the sub will kill the CVN. The remaining three can be used for backup.
(In reality, given any weapon system's reliability, such a non-dense pattern is essentially rolling the dice - the one that actually gets into the kill basket of the CVN may well be the one that misfires. Reduce the radius of the pattern to allow for this, probably reducing it to three-times-lethal-radius.


So, what's the lethal radius?
Good question. This is probably one of the biggest unknowns.

But let's assume that the targeting-to-relay-to-launch-to-impact delay is half an hour.
In that time, the CVN may have moved around 30 km, so the lethal radius of the nukes on the submarine must be 6-10 km - assuming the pattern is perfect and the aim point is spot on.
So this is expending all the firepower of a Typhoon sub to get a kill on a US CVN. Is this worth it?
Well, there were more CVNs built than Typhoons.

As of 1980, there were eleven full fleet carriers in the US inventory (two CVN) and... no Typhoons. The first one was just about to enter service.
So you have to use a less potent platform, thus degrading your pattern's efficiency and size.


In other words... plausible enough to work once, if luck falls the way of the user, but not plausible enough to really warrant rededicating one's SLBM second strike capabilities, IMO.
The kind of thing you'd see in a really well researched action film or techno-thriller, perhaps?

 

[asnys]

You're forgetting that the Typhoon's SLBMs were MIRVed - ten warheads each, according to wiki.

ETA: You're right that the kill radius of a nuke is very important to whether or not this will work. For a good-sized bomb, the thermal radiation effects will have a larger radius then the blast effects: a Typhoon's SLBMs carried 100-200 kT warheads (again, going by wiki), which will inflict 3rd-degree burns out to a radius of 4.5-6 km. That wouldn't sink a carrier, at least not directly, but might it be enough to mission-kill it? Honest question, as I have no idea how much damage that would do to the equipment on the deck.

 

[Saphroneth]

You're forgetting that the Typhoon's SLBMs were MIRVed - ten warheads each, according to wiki.

Ah, okay. Interesting - that increases the theoretical number of warheads to 200, though it also does mean that the pattern becomes incredibly porous unless double- or triple-stacked. (Because the MIRVing is yet another thing to go wrong).
That makes the conservative estimate of the blasting radius possible be more like ten to twelve times the lethal radius, and reduces the required lethal radius to more like three kilometres.
That sounds lethal to me from a 100kt warhead, alright, if you're willing to chuck everything you have at the carrier.
That means the problem becomes more of "is it possible to give that level of targeting data to a hidden submarine on quick notice"? You'd need the sub to be at periscope depth, I think.


...still a scarce resource to use, though.

 

[asnys]

That means the problem becomes more of "is it possible to give that level of targeting data to a hidden submarine on quick notice"? You'd need the sub to be at periscope depth, I think.

If it's sitting in a bastion, staying at periscope depth shouldn't be a serious problem, I wouldn't think.

...still a scarce resource to use, though.

How about this: the Soviets had a bunch of old missile submarines lying around from the '60s, whose tubes were too small to hold modern SLBMs, so they would have to sneak up to the coastline to hit targets in the CONUS. Why not use them with a new missile type? Something like a shrunk RSM-52 (the missile on the Typhoon), with the same payload and guidance but a much shorter range. Keep them holed up in the bastion where they don't have to dodge Western ASW, and use them to hit any CBGs that try to get close.

 

[Delta Force]

It seems it would require multiple city killer type warheads to have a high probability of destroying a surface warfare group. Perhaps the older missiles designed for that role (Titan II, early versions of the SS-18) could be shifted over to the anti-ship role, since they would have the city killer warheads and their lower inherent accuracy wouldn't matter.

 

[CarribeanViking]

This is literally out of a Tom Clancy novel- he really did mention this- in the Polaris/Poseidon days, there were trials made of a counterbattery system for SLBM's;

the range was short enough and rate of launch low enough that the first incoming missile could be detected, the launchpoint computed and an IRBM fired back at the launch point quickly enough that the submarine could be destroyed before it got all it's shots off, sparing some destruction at least.

Full blown ICBMs were too slow to react, apparently- and the entire premise falls apart with the range and flight time of Trident, which could move too far before the counterfire got there.


On the subject of warhead lethal radii, subsurface is a very effective way to do it. American ships were shock hardened against this possibility, be surprised if the other major players hadn't followed suit, but nuclear depth bombs were expected to be effective at ranges of five to eight nautical miles with five to twenty kilotons yield, which is far more kill than you're going to get out of the same in a surface burst- one to two there, maybe.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

It would be 'easy' to build pattern recognition into something warhead-sized. A CVN is a pretty distinctive shape, and would be tough to mistake for anything else.


Now, giving a warhead radar (because the carrier could well be under clouds), and enough manoeuvring room to travel 30 miles/50km off its aim point, those would be tricky.

OTOH, Carriers aren't likely to be jerking around in totally random directions at 30 knots. Yes, they'll be zig-zagging, probably, but they're probably also going to be heading in a specific general direction. In that case, the carrier might be 3miles/5km from the aim point, rather than 10 times that.

 

[Saphroneth]

While I remain unsure (as in, I don't know one way or the other) if it's actually practical... it's one of the coolest concepts in military science.

Also I kind of would love to see an alt-hist story where this is used to take out HMS Serenity. And, to complete the reference, she gets her strike off first.

(Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me.)

 

[Delta Force]

This is literally out of a Tom Clancy novel- he really did mention this- in the Polaris/Poseidon days, there were trials made of a counterbattery system for SLBM's;

the range was short enough and rate of launch low enough that the first incoming missile could be detected, the launchpoint computed and an IRBM fired back at the launch point quickly enough that the submarine could be destroyed before it got all it's shots off, sparing some destruction at least.

That might not work in the 1980s. I think there was a missile test where the Soviet Navy fired all missiles from a Typhoon class submarine in a minute or so.

Full blown ICBMs were too slow to react, apparently- and the entire premise falls apart with the range and flight time of Trident, which could move too far before the counterfire got there.

They have to fly higher up and have a longer minimum range even when fired on a depressed trajectory.

 

[Panica]

So the Chinese are allegedly working on these things, at least if you believe the Pentagon. But the idea goes back to the '70s.

I recently read a monograph on alleged Soviet efforts to detect submarines using satellites. I'm mostly skeptical of the author's claims, but she does mention some interesting ideas about using ballistic missiles with nuclear warheads to target surface ships (and, potentially, submarines), which were circulating among at least some members of the Soviet naval staff. The big problem with China's alleged ASBM effort is how to guide the weapon to the ship; the Russian idea was to get around that by using a nuclear warhead - a big one - and by firing enough missiles to saturate all the possible places the target could move between launch and landing. This would place a premium on using submarines as launch platforms, since they could be closer to the target, which would both reduce the time the target has to dodge and allow you to use smaller, cheaper missiles.

The main obstacles to making this work would be timing: you need to locate the target, transmit that information to the launch platform, program the missiles, and fire, in a short time frame. That's a tall order, especially if your launch platform is a submarine.

Naval stuff isn't really my forte, so what do y'all think? Could either the Americans or (more likely) the Soviets put something like this together in the '80s, and if they could, what impact would it have on naval strategy and procurement?
​

can you give us her name?

The Missile was R-27 Ryb
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R-27_Zyb


The old USSR Satellite network works even with P-700 Moskito missile as system but satellite part went black doe to fall of USSR - No money...
But I do doubt that time from Satellite to platform was 30 minutes it would be less for less. (Another thing that P-700 could up date its data on flight
that missiles is sneaky bastard.)


What killed whole idea was START I/II you were wasting SLBMs in tactical role where strategic was there mine role.

Another note is that if you work inIRBMs spectrum you can use radar Guidance aka in Perishing II

 

[Viper81]

Let's not forgot the strategic situation which would allow/escalate to the point of salvoing nukes to take out high value warships. At that point, I'd wager that the ICBMs are already flying. In the 1980s, that means cities are going to start being targeted sooner or later, and MAD a given. I don't think either side is going to waste large numbers of warheads hoping to hit a couple carriers or subs (not to mention good luck finding SSBNs before they launch their own loads). Whether it's possible or not isn't really relevant when your home country is already a radioactive wasteland.

 

[Georgepatton]

That might not work in the 1980s. I think there was a missile test where the Soviet Navy fired all missiles from a Typhoon class submarine in a minute or so.

Being able to fire them all off really fast isn't necessarily the same thing as being able to fire them all accurately or safely, though, no?

 

[Saphroneth]

The only situation I can see where nuking carriers like that would be helpful would be if there were viable integrated ABM nets across large areas of vital ground, and in that case carrier strikes to degrade the ABM net would be important.
But in that situation ships will have massive ABM capability of their own, even if they have to build dedicated battleship-sized ABM platforms, and before long you're essentially recreating Honor Harrington missile pod doctrine.

 

[asnys]

On the subject of warhead lethal radii, subsurface is a very effective way to do it. American ships were shock hardened against this possibility, be surprised if the other major players hadn't followed suit, but nuclear depth bombs were expected to be effective at ranges of five to eight nautical miles with five to twenty kilotons yield, which is far more kill than you're going to get out of the same in a surface burst- one to two there, maybe.

Do you know if that's with a surface burst, or subsurface? You'd probably need to redesign the warhead - possibly extensively - to do a subsurface detonation.

Now, giving a warhead radar (because the carrier could well be under clouds), and enough manoeuvring room to travel 30 miles/50km off its aim point, those would be tricky.

Yeah, MaRVs with active sensors are probably '90s at the earliest.

can you give us her name?

Hung Nguyen. The monograph was Submarine Detection from space: A Study of Russian Capabilities; it's available on HathiTrust.

Let's not forgot the strategic situation which would allow/escalate to the point of salvoing nukes to take out high value warships. At that point, I'd wager that the ICBMs are already flying. In the 1980s, that means cities are going to start being targeted sooner or later, and MAD a given. I don't think either side is going to waste large numbers of warheads hoping to hit a couple carriers or subs (not to mention good luck finding SSBNs before they launch their own loads). Whether it's possible or not isn't really relevant when your home country is already a radioactive wasteland.

The only situation I can see where nuking carriers like that would be helpful would be if there were viable integrated ABM nets across large areas of vital ground, and in that case carrier strikes to degrade the ABM net would be important.
But in that situation ships will have massive ABM capability of their own, even if they have to build dedicated battleship-sized ABM platforms, and before long you're essentially recreating Honor Harrington missile pod doctrine.

You need to remember that the US, and probably the USSR as well, were making plans for protracted (multi-month) nuclear conflicts with city avoidance. Whether or not that could actually happen in the real world, a lot of nuclear strategists thought it could, and that belief had a big impact on procurement decisions.

 

[SactoMan101]

If I remember correct, the Chinese are developing the DF-21 specifically as a means to destroy US Navy carriers.

Only one thing though: you need a powerful--at least 300-400 kT yield--nuclear warhead to ensure a "kill" even with the latest ballistic missile guidance technology. This is why I think the DF-21 was developed as a "carrier killer" not with a conventional warhead, but with a 300 to 500 kT nuclear warhead, so even if the missile's point of detonation is over a mile away from the carrier location the blast effect from a 300 to 500 kT warhead is enough to incapacitate the carrier.

 

[politicalnomad]

Yankee II

The Soviets built a single Yankee II class submarine equipped with the SS-N-17 Snipe SLBM; supposedly it's reason for existence was that the SS-N-17 had a retargeting capability to allow strikes on aircraft carrier battle groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yankee-class_submarine#Variants

 

[Viper81]

You need to remember that the US, and probably the USSR as well, were making plans for protracted (multi-month) nuclear conflicts with city avoidance. Whether or not that could actually happen in the real world, a lot of nuclear strategists thought it could, and that belief had a big impact on procurement decisions.

Do you have sources for this? Given the number of nuclear facilities located in/near major populated areas, it sounds like a wet dream.