I wonder how long rocket launched from the deck of a submarine needs time to reach the target

[Pawelk198604]

I mean SLBM but ICBM too.

[smjjames]

That is going to vary heavily depending on the distance between the sub and the target, and to a lesser extent, the rocket being launched.

While exact numbers would obviously be classified, you could wiki or google for approx times.

[magnemoe]

Think the main constrain will be how high you have to get it before going down again, my guess is that you will have to reach the edge of space anyway, you can use blow out panels to limit the trust on stages but I guess you have to be in vacuum for the trajectory adjustment for the warhead bus to work.

[LordFerret]

My understanding, being the sub is just outside the USA's claimed territorial limits (200 miles), a coastal target (like NYC, or Philly, or DC) would be under 7 minutes. How true that is? I don't know, and don't care to test it.

- - - Updated - - -

...actually, I think that's based on the 'rocket' being a cruise missle.

[Kerbart]

My understanding, being the sub is just outside the USA's claimed territorial limits (200 miles), a coastal target (like NYC, or Philly, or DC) would be under 7 minutes. How true that is? I don't know, and don't care to test it.

Well if you're going to kick off WW3 then adhering to territorial limits is a bit silly, isn't it. Launch right off the coast, I'd say.

[LordFerret]

Well if you're going to kick off WW3 then adhering to territorial limits is a bit silly, isn't it. Launch right off the coast, I'd say.

That being the case (kicking off WW3), I don't think you'd get far in from that monitored boundary before being encountered... you'd not make it 'to the coast'.

[DerekL1963]

I mean SLBM but ICBM too.

That depends mostly on the range, and to a lesser degree on the trajectory chosen.

Full disclosure: Trident-I Missile Fire Control Technician, USS Henry L. Stimson (SSBN 655B) 1983-'87.

[Brethern]

That being the case (kicking off WW3), I don't think you'd get far in from that monitored boundary before being encountered... you'd not make it 'to the coast'.

You should try talking to people who served during the cold war.

You're opinion will change pretty quick.

[kiwi1960]

My understanding, being the sub is just outside the USA's claimed territorial limits (200 miles), a coastal target (like NYC, or Philly, or DC) would be under 7 minutes. How true that is? I don't know, and don't care to test it.

- - - Updated - - -

...actually, I think that's based on the 'rocket' being a cruise missle.

Sorry, you are wrong. For starters, the territorial limit is, and has always been 12 miles. However, back in the 1970's, the world agreed that nations could have an "Exclusive Economic Zone" which extends 200 kilometres from shore, which means that any fish, oil/gas or whatever in that zone belong to that nation. Where two nations are closer that 200K then an agreement is reached so the zone border is exactly half way between the two. New Zealand, where I live, isn't that big, but thanks to owning Islands in the Pacific, we have the worlds fourth largest EEZ .

Now... to the question... this is why missile Submarines were/are popular, especially during the cold war, they are hard to find, and if sitting off the coast, would only give the USA or USSR (at that time) *MINUTES* warning... the only consolation at the time was that the Sub would need to surface and prepare the missile for launching... if detected, well, they would be at the mercy of anyone nearby with a Destroyer or the like. **POLARIS changed all that, however, the world first underwater launched ICBM, The USSR followed soon after with its own version**

Probably before your time, but this is why the USA objected to nukes being kept on Cuban soil, resulting in the "Cuban Missile Crisis" (October 1962) These missiles would only have been 90 miles from US soil... which is further than any enemy sub, but these would have actually haver been harder to destroy or protect against than sub launched missiles.

For safety, most Soviet subs didn't get closer than 20 miles to the coast, in case they made a mistake and ended up inside US borders and triggering a war... at 20 miles, the USA would only have had minutes... Washington, New York, the Pentagon... were all at risk. The USSR was slightly better off, as Moscow is so far inland.

Hope that helps.

EDIT: As for detection.... the USA had, for years, an underwater detection system called SOSUS... link here...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SOSUS

Extending from Canada to Iceland to Europe .... and they also had them along the US coast line. This means no enemy sub would DARE come closer than the 12 mile limit.

Edited July 16, 2015 by kiwi1960

[Kryten]

In practice, non-US missile submarines are usually deployed in areas where they're easily defended and quite far from their targets, sometimes referred to as 'bastions': Chinese subs are deployed in the Bohai sea, French and British in the eastern Atlantic, and Russian ones in the Barents and White seas. This is because they're doctrinally intended as a durable second-strike capability, not for surprise attacks.

Edited July 16, 2015 by Kryten

[DerekL1963]

In practice, non-US missile submarines are usually deployed in areas where they're easily defended and quite far from their targets, sometimes referred to as 'bastions': Chinese subs are deployed in the Bohai sea, French and British in the eastern Atlantic, and Russian ones in the Barents and White seas.

The Soviets made patrols in the Atlantic at least as late as the mid 80's, because their earlier missiles could not reach useful targets in the US from the Barents or White seas. Only the later generation SSBN's and missiles, which could reach the US from areas near the Soviet coast, were deployed in bastions. In fact, as the cold war wore on, they tended to deploy less and less (Soviet SSBN patrols are generally accepted to have peaked in 1983 and declined sharply thereafter) instead relying on a 'surge' strategy in times of crisis.

Given their current status, it's not clear that the Russians are deploying their SSBN's that often, and nor does it appear they can defend them adequately.

The Chinese are not currently known to have ever actually deployed their SSBN's, nor are their missiles known to be operational. There's a lot of rumors and grave pronouncements of potential capability from US officials, but nothing firm from either side.

The eastern Atlantic does not, in the naval sense, constitute a bastion. There's not known to be any defenses or standing defensive patrols or sensor networks. It's highly likely there are cooperative efforts in tracking potential hostiles and in conducting delousing operations, but that's not the same as a bastion.

[GoSlash27]

The number I had always heard thrown around was 15 minutes. A sub can deliver a nuke anywhere on the planet in 15 minutes from launch.

I don't know if it's correct, it's just what I've always been told.

Best,

-Slashy

[Wemb]

The number I had always heard thrown around was 15 minutes. A sub can deliver a nuke anywhere on the planet in 15 minutes from launch.

I don't know if it's correct, it's just what I've always been told.

-Slashy

The UK Government's official figure was 4 mins between detection and impact. Note - not four mins from launch, but four mins between detection (by radar or satellites) and detonation.

And, of course, the time between the public hearing the sirens starting to wail and the explosions would probably have been substantially less.

Wemb

[LordFerret]

4 minutes, 7 minutes, 15 minutes..... doesn't matter much suffice to say it's only time enough to kiss your arse goodbye.

[HoloYolo]

I watched a video on it and I found a US sub can launch a nuke from the Atlantic Ocean to Shanghai in 10-15 minutes.

[kiwi1960]

I watched a video on it and I found a US sub can launch a nuke from the Atlantic Ocean to Shanghai in 10-15 minutes.

Must be a modern missile then, because under water launched missiles like Polaris only had a range of about 1500 miles.

[K^2]

The number I had always heard thrown around was 15 minutes. A sub can deliver a nuke anywhere on the planet in 15 minutes from launch.

I don't know if it's correct, it's just what I've always been told.

Best,

-Slashy

That would take quite a few subs. ICBMs are, as the name implies, ballistic. In other words, they follow Kepler's Laws. Mid-range ones tend to have pretty high apogees, because that reduces dV requirement. So they spend all their time in the slow part of their sub-orbital trajectory. Fifteen minutes just doesn't give you a lot of range with ICBM. Typical inter-continental times are closer to 30m, and that's the sort of thing you need to have for global coverage with a "few" subs.

[Motokid600]

I was always more curious of how they actually hit satellites with a missile to begin with. I can't imagine accelating a missile to orbital velocities. So instead of hitting a satellite with a missile. Isn't it more along the lines of hitting a missile with a satellite? And then what is done to prevent boosting the debris into a higher orbit? Does the missile strike the prograde side of the satellite?

[Redjoker]

I was always more curious of how they actually hit satellites with a missile to begin with. I can't imagine accelating a missile to orbital velocities. So instead of hitting a satellite with a missile. Isn't it more along the lines of hitting a missile with a satellite? And then what is done to prevent boosting the debris into a higher orbit? Does the missile strike the prograde side of the satellite?

It the same process as a direct ascent to rendezvous except you don't match velocities and want to hit the target. To your second question, nothing is done, destroying a satellite with a missile generates a large amount of debris. The last chinesse test in 2007 resulted in roughly 2,317 pieces of debris golf ball sized or larger.

[Shpaget]

With all the immunity diplomats have, it's perfectly possible, and quite easy, to import tactical nukes to a country you plan on attacking. After a few months of such smuggling you can have dozens of such bombs placed around the targeted country, ready to detonate. It seems to me it's a lot simpler, cheaper and safer for the attacker than launching a nuke from a submarine, not to mention more effective.

As for satellite killing, it's my understanding that only relatively recently they started to work on and test kinetic sat killers. They started with detonating nukes in the vicinity. Probably because before the advent of fast enough computer you could install on a missile, along with attitude, RCS, and targeting systems, they just weren't accurate enough to actually hit such a small and fast target.

[DerekL1963]

With all the immunity diplomats have, it's perfectly possible, and quite easy, to import tactical nukes to a country you plan on attacking. After a few months of such smuggling you can have dozens of such bombs placed around the targeted country, ready to detonate. It seems to me it's a lot simpler, cheaper and safer for the attacker than launching a nuke from a submarine, not to mention more effective.

0.o

Nobody sane would ever try this plan, and someone insane is even less likely to try it because it places the weapons out of close control and leaves them in insecure areas, and vastly increases the chances of them being discovered and intercepted.

There's a reason why pretty much everybody who has ever seriously tried to build a nuclear weapon has also chased (and generally obtained) at least IRBM capability. (The sole exception is South Africa, but there were special circumstances there.)

[B787_300]

Please keep it on the topic of SLBMs and not talk about other things like diplomats

[WinkAllKerb'']

xDr ... dunno at all but i guess best is to monitor the launch by sat for precise measurement ... Romlaglog & *shrug* by diplomat you mean diplodocus Bseven ? xDr

[ComradeWolfe]

This link is somewhat relevant at the bottom, and otherwise a good read. It also links to a paper on decreasing ICBM time to target.

[kiwi1960]

With all the immunity diplomats have, it's perfectly possible, and quite easy, to import tactical nukes to a country you plan on attacking. After a few months of such smuggling you can have dozens of such bombs placed around the targeted country, ready to detonate. It seems to me it's a lot simpler, cheaper and safer for the attacker than launching a nuke from a submarine, not to mention more effective.

As for satellite killing, it's my understanding that only relatively recently they started to work on and test kinetic sat killers. They started with detonating nukes in the vicinity. Probably because before the advent of fast enough computer you could install on a missile, along with attitude, RCS, and targeting systems, they just weren't accurate enough to actually hit such a small and fast target.

Ha yes, the classic plot of a spy thriller writer...

While Diplomatic bags cannot be searched, or X-rayed, they can and are tested for radioactivity ... they still cannot touch it, but can send it back to where it came from with a 'return to sender' sticker on it...

The upshot is... you could build a bomb using that idea, but getting the stuff to make it go 'boom' .... a bit harder.

- - - Updated - - -

Please keep it on the topic of SLBMs and not talk about other things like diplomats

sorry, saw this after I already posted.