nuke11 wrote:
Quote:
|
The pictures in the book are wrong. A MIRV will not be used in this fashion. MRV maybe, but that is only 1 missile SS-11M3 was in this configuration.
|
Yes, they are very much in error.
The key concept is to maximise area destroyed, rather than 'the areas of total destruction overlap'. The latter tries to satisfy both target kill probability and destruction area. I agree that this may be a potential MRV attack mode, but it seems to waste weapon effect for either hardened point or softer area targets.
Chapter 2 of the Office of Technology Assessment report 'The Effects of Nuclear War', available here:
http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1979/7906_n.html
has a good illustration of a MIRV attack against Leningrad which illustrates the damage maximisation concept (p.44). 5psi overpressure zones touch each other. 10 40kt weapons are equivalent to a single 1.17Mt detonation.
The MRV configuration of the SS-11 was noted in the initial post.
Quote:
|
A typical MIRV pattern would be 100 miles to either side along the track of the bus.
|
That's pretty close to what I've read. Exact MIRV capabilities are classified, but 'The Effects of Nuclear War', refers to MIRV footprints on p.65:
Quote:
Like all MIRVed missiles, the SS-18 has limitations of “footprint” –the area within which the warheads from a single missile can be aimed. Thus, the Soviets could strike not any 80 refineries but only 8 targets in each of 10
footprints of roughly 125,000 mi^2
|
This corresponds to an ellipse about 500 miles long (840km) and 250 miles
wide (420km) whose long axis corresponds to the direction of flight/fire (azimuth). So for ICBMs fired over the pole, this is very roughly north-south.
Page 66 of the 'Effects' report has some illustrative maps.
Quote:
|
The missile fields maybe would get patterns like this (but that is what the big 20 MT warheads where for), but they really need to be timed as to not Interfere with the previous dentations. Patterns would need to be developed to help support and boost the dentations blast waves as they move out.
|
You can't have both blast wave boosting and not interfere with previous detonations - the former is constructive interference, by any definition.
Against ICBM silos and launch control centres you're relying on cratering or ground shock effects to produce a kill. This is easier to do with a high yield warhead, but by the 1980s both sides had sufficiently accurate weapons that high yield warheads were unnecessary.
In the MP scenario, the 20MT warheads were excellent area-wrecking weapons (cities, soft military bases and airfields).
Rob