# US to deploy new missiles to Guam

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-to-deploy-new-missiles-to-guam/831221>\
**Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\
**Created:** [March 16, 2019, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-to-deploy-new-missiles-to-guam/831221 "2019-03-16T09:12:51Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2019, 9:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-to-deploy-new-missiles-to-guam/831221/1 "2019-03-16T09:12:51Z")

</div>

A land based cruise missile and an IRBM with 4000 km range. Testing to begin in August, which is when withdrawals from INF take effect.  
[After the INF Treaty: US Plans First Tests of New Short and Intermediate-Range Missiles – The Diplomat](https://thediplomat.com/2019/03/after-the-inf-treaty-us-plans-first-tests-of-new-short-and-intermediate-range-missiles/)  
They claim it will remain conventionally armed. Yeah right. That can change quickly and without warning.

Quite a smart move, the US will be able to threaten all of the China coast and a significant amount of targets int he Russian Pacific. And since these weapons are not counted toward strategic warhead numbers, doing so without committing a single strategic warhead.

And making Guam a warhead sponge…  
Truly Cold Was Mk2 is upon us.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Lord\_Feldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lord_feldon/32/341_2.png) [@Lord\_Feldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lord_Feldon)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2019, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-to-deploy-new-missiles-to-guam/831221/2 "2019-03-16T09:43:46Z")

</div>

"The cruise missile may be ready for deployment as soon as early 2021, according to the existing timetable. "

“May be.” In other words, well after 2021, or maybe never.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2019, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-to-deploy-new-missiles-to-guam/831221/3 "2019-03-16T10:15:32Z")

</div>

Dude in an era where it takes 10 years to develop a weapon system, 2 years is nothing. It suggests they have been developing it for sometime.

Plus the “May” is based upon INF treaty surviving past August, unlikely.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2019, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-to-deploy-new-missiles-to-guam/831221/4 "2019-03-16T14:51:19Z")

</div>

> [@AK84](#):
>
> Quite a smart move, the US will be able to threaten all of the China coast and a significant amount of targets int he Russian Pacific. And since these weapons are not counted toward strategic warhead numbers, doing so without committing a single strategic warhead.
> 
> And making Guam a warhead sponge…
> 
> Truly Cold Was Mk2 is upon us.

So the DF-26 was the reason for withdrawing from the INF after all! (Obviously we can only speculate.)

Guam was a warhead sponge no matter what. This will give the US something to point back with.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2019, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-to-deploy-new-missiles-to-guam/831221/5 "2019-03-17T06:41:31Z")

</div>

> [@TokyoBayer](#):
>
> So the DF-26 was the reason for withdrawing from the INF after all! (Obviously we can only speculate.)
> 
> Guam was a warhead sponge no matter what. This will give the US something to point back with.

Guessing that (and the general Chinese IRBM build up) was the reason.  
True about Guam. I wonder if the US has a successor to the F111 in mind. Fencers and Fullbacks will make everyone life miserable.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![TokyoBayer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tokyobayer/32/13989_2.png) [@TokyoBayer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TokyoBayer)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2019, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-to-deploy-new-missiles-to-guam/831221/6 "2019-03-17T13:58:38Z")

</div>

> [@AK84](#):
>
> Guessing that (and the general Chinese IRBM build up) was the reason.
> 
> True about Guam. I wonder if the US has a successor to the F111 in mind. Fencers and Fullbacksguuam will make everyone life miserable.

The US had to worry about the bear as well, but there’s a lot of thinking concerning what the heck to do in the Pacific.

The idea that China knocks out Kadena AFB and Anderson AFB, slow the carriers down and present the US with a fait accompli invasion of Taiwan has been one attractive option.

Adding mobile missile batteries will be another deterrent.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2019, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-to-deploy-new-missiles-to-guam/831221/7 "2019-03-17T18:22:40Z")

</div>

> [@AK84](#):
>
> Dude in an era where it takes 10 years to develop a weapon system, 2 years is nothing. It suggests they have been developing it for sometime.

For the cruise missile we’ve been developing and improving it for about five decades. 😉 It’s the sea launched [Tomahawk](https://missilethreat.csis.org/us-to-test-inf-range-glcm-and-ballistic-missile/) cruise missile being tested from a ground firing platform. We’ve even got relevant experience. A modified Tomahawk was used as the former US ground launched cruise missile that were all destroyed when the INF treaty was implemented.

> [@](#):
>
> “We’ll actually launch it, and it’ll fly out, and we’ll prove the concept — that you can take a Tomahawk and put it on a truck,” said one senior defense official. The same official noted that if testing is successful, the ground-mobile Tomahawk could be deployed within 18 months.

Truck-a-hawks are going to be non-trivial to nuclearize if we ever decided to. The requirement to be nuclear capable got dropped in later Tomahawk variants. More importantly, is an issue with the W80 Mod 0 warheads the Tomahawk carried. It’s a pretty significant issue. We don’t have any. We dismantled them. ([Cite](https://fas.org/blogs/security/2013/02/stockpilereduction/))

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Crafter\_Man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crafter_man/32/458_2.png) [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2019, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-to-deploy-new-missiles-to-guam/831221/8 "2019-03-17T19:21:21Z")

</div>

Not sure what the big deal is. We’ve had nuclear-capable bombers at Andersen AFB for a long time.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2019, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-to-deploy-new-missiles-to-guam/831221/9 "2019-03-17T19:29:23Z")

</div>

> [@AK84](#):
>
> Dude in an era where it takes 10 years to develop a weapon system, 2 years is nothing. It suggests they have been developing it for sometime.
> 
> Plus the “May” is based upon INF treaty surviving past August, unlikely.

And yet despite that, there’s zero information on a new US IRBM in development. That leads me to believe that it’s either BS, or some kind of jack-legged combination of off-the-shelf boosters and existing systems- like maybe finding some kind of way to boost a JDAM 4000 miles with existing boosters or something like that.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2019, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-to-deploy-new-missiles-to-guam/831221/10 "2019-03-17T21:44:10Z")

</div>

> [@bump](#):
>
> And yet despite that, there’s zero information on a new US IRBM in development. That leads me to believe that it’s either BS, or some kind of jack-legged combination of off-the-shelf boosters and existing systems- like maybe finding some kind of way to boost a JDAM 4000 miles with existing boosters or something like that.

I had thought that, e.g., ATACMS, could easily have been modified to have a 1-2000 km range or more, but wasn’t because of INF concerns? Though F-35 with JAASM-ER, should be able to do most of what a modern Pershing 2 system would be able to, without any destabilizing IRBM launch signature. F-35 combat radius on internal fuel is what, 600nm? And add JAASM-ER’s range of at least 500nm, and that’s pretty close to the 1500 mm or so between Guam and Taipei. I’m sure there are stealthy external or conformal tanks the -35 can use to bump that range up a bit more.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![DinoR](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dinor/32/2821_2.png) [@DinoR](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DinoR)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2019, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-to-deploy-new-missiles-to-guam/831221/11 "2019-03-17T22:16:47Z")

</div>

> [@Gray\_Ghost](#):
>
> I had thought that, e.g., ATACMS, could easily have been modified to have a 1-2000 km range or more, but wasn’t because of INF concerns?

The longest range variant of the ATACMS only had a 300km reach. The INF limit is \<500km so it wasn’t being limited by the treaty. It’s also on it’s way out. The Army has been developing the Precision Strike Munition [(PrSM)](https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2018/10/08/army-pushes-to-get-precision-strike-munition-to-the-force-by-2023/) as it’s replacement. That has the max INF allowed range of 499km so there may well be some potential to push it further without a lot of extra development. The time frame for fielding to replace ATACMS is 2025. That fits roughly with the unnamed IRBM fielding time frame if the changes don’t require significant development time. I haven’t seen any mention of specifics, though, unlike the Tomahawk test.

> [@](#):
>
> Though F-35 with JAASM-ER, should be able to do most of what a modern Pershing 2 system would be able to,

It’s also more susceptible to air defenses than an IRBM.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2019, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-to-deploy-new-missiles-to-guam/831221/12 "2019-03-17T22:51:34Z")

</div>

Does the US have similar missiles (sea, air, surface or ground-launched) in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan or the Philippines?

The US has never been all that big on land vehicle-launched missiles. How will exiting the INF treaty affect potential conventional wars? How much of an advantage for the US to launch its missiles from land vehicles in addition to submarines, surface ships or aircraft?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\
**Post date:** [March 18, 2019, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-to-deploy-new-missiles-to-guam/831221/13 "2019-03-18T01:11:10Z")

</div>

> [@AK84](#):
>
> I wonder if the US has a successor to the F111 in mind. Fencers and Fullbacks will make everyone life miserable.

Not sure if I’m being whooshed but the F-15E Strike Eagle was/is the replacement for the F-111 Aadvark. It’s been that way since the late 1980s.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\
**Post date:** [March 18, 2019, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-to-deploy-new-missiles-to-guam/831221/14 "2019-03-18T01:12:44Z")

</div>

> [@MichaelEmouse](#):
>
> Does the US have similar missiles (sea, air, surface or ground-launched) in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan or the Philippines?

Not in Taiwan. Don’t know about the others.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Gray\_Ghost](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c0e974/32.png) [@Gray\_Ghost](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gray_Ghost)\
**Post date:** [March 18, 2019, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-to-deploy-new-missiles-to-guam/831221/15 "2019-03-18T04:14:02Z")

</div>

> [@DinoR](#):
>
> The longest range variant of the ATACMS only had a 300km reach. The INF limit is \<500km so it wasn’t being limited by the treaty. It’s also on it’s way out. The Army has been developing the Precision Strike Munition [(PrSM)](https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/ausa/2018/10/08/army-pushes-to-get-precision-strike-munition-to-the-force-by-2023/) as it’s replacement. That has the max INF allowed range of 499km so there may well be some potential to push it further without a lot of extra development. The time frame for fielding to replace ATACMS is 2025. That fits roughly with the unnamed IRBM fielding time frame if the changes don’t require significant development time. I haven’t seen any mention of specifics, though, unlike the Tomahawk test.  
> It’s also more susceptible to air defenses than an IRBM.

I’m not sure about the last point, given the RCS differences between the two delivery modes. Patriot and THAAD can whack IRBMs in terminal phase, and I am willing to bet the PLA’s equivalent can too. But they can only hit what they see. IIRC, one of the S-300 variants in Syria was stationed close enough to be able to resolve [this F-35](https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/this-is-the-israeli-army-s-photo-of-an-f-35-over-beirut-1.6114446), but didn’t fire or even try to lock on with its Flap Lid. I can imagine JASSM-ER’s RCS is even tinier.

I know that ATACMS was only deployed with a ~300 km range motor; I’d heard the size of the missile would’ve allowed for a much more long range motor, if desired, but it would’ve run afoul of the INF treaty. I know someone like Stranger will be coming by to explain that I’m grossly oversimplifying this, and I am, but as to there being no warheads for a redeployed TLAM-N, TLAM is a touch wider than a B-83. B-61s are even skinnier. Would it be that much of a kludge to just repurpose some of the B-61s or 83s for this new missile, assuming we don’t just go ahead and finally get the RRW underway?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\
**Post date:** [March 18, 2019, 7:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-to-deploy-new-missiles-to-guam/831221/16 "2019-03-18T07:54:34Z")

</div>

> [@Velocity](#):
>
> Not sure if I’m being whooshed but the F-15E Strike Eagle was/is the replacement for the F-111 Aadvark. It’s been that way since the late 1980s.

Half the range and abiut 3/5 the bombload.

> [@Gray\_Ghost](#):
>
> I’m not sure about the last point, given the RCS differences between the two delivery modes. Patriot and THAAD can whack IRBMs in terminal phase, and I am willing to bet the PLA’s equivalent can too. But they can only hit what they see. IIRC, one of the S-300 variants in Syria was stationed close enough to be able to resolve [this F-35](https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/this-is-the-israeli-army-s-photo-of-an-f-35-over-beirut-1.6114446), but didn’t fire or even try to lock on with its Flap Lid. I can imagine JASSM-ER’s RCS is even tinier.

The Chinese equivalent of THAAD is [the HQ19](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HQ-9#Variants). THAAD (and HQ-19 and S400) are not really designed to protect against warheads with more advanced counter measures and in the case of THAAD it is expressly useless against MIRV.  
We are not looking at SS4’s and Jupiter missiles, Newer systems have [Maneuverable Re-Entry Vehicles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maneuverable_reentry_vehicle),[hyper sonic glide vehicles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_(hypersonic_glide_vehicle)). WE have also seen the emergence of MIRV payloads on [shorter range missiles](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/pakistan-has-just-tested-the-ultimate-nuclear-missile-24834).  
I doubt the new IRBM will have a simple blunt nosed SRV.

> [@](#):
>
> I know that ATACMS was only deployed with a ~300 km range motor; I’d heard the size of the missile would’ve allowed for a much more long range motor, if desired, but it would’ve run afoul of the INF treaty. I know someone like Stranger will be coming by to explain that I’m grossly oversimplifying this, and I am, but as to there being no warheads for a redeployed TLAM-N, TLAM is a touch wider than a B-83. B-61s are even skinnier. Would it be that much of a kludge to just repurpose some of the B-61s or 83s for this new missile, assuming we don’t just go ahead and finally get the RRW underway?

I am guessing that exisging stockplile will have warheads available, though I would be very surprised if the W-76 or W-87/W-88 are not deployed on the IRBM at least.

Coventionally armed CM have a real role as do conventionally armed short range BM’s.  
A coventional longer range BM is just a an expensive arty piece. Single use.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![wevets](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9a140/32.png) [@wevets](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wevets)\
**Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-to-deploy-new-missiles-to-guam/831221/17 "2019-03-19T16:30:24Z")

</div>

> [@AK84](#):
>
> Half the range and abiut 3/5 the bombload.

There was a proposal floating around for a while for a new intermediate-range bomber based on the F-22 frame, but the [FB-22’s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_FB-22) ship has sailed at this point.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![MichaelEmouse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/michaelemouse/32/101_2.png) [@MichaelEmouse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MichaelEmouse)\
**Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-to-deploy-new-missiles-to-guam/831221/18 "2019-03-19T16:36:30Z")

</div>

The F-22 and F-35 wouldn’t chiefly be used to strike themselves although they would do that too. They’d be used to stealthily penetrate Chinese territory, spot targets then call in and guide off-board weapons like those CMs and BMs. Or munitions carried by other platforms like F-16s flying at low altitude and stand-off distance. The B-2 might also be used that way, especially if you mount sensors, including in its bomb bay.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\
**Post date:** [March 19, 2019, 4:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-to-deploy-new-missiles-to-guam/831221/19 "2019-03-19T16:48:44Z")

</div>

> [@AK84](#):
>
> Quite a smart move, the US will be able to threaten all of the China coast and a significant amount of targets int he Russian Pacific.

Look at the map a little more closely.

North Korea.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![AK84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@AK84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AK84)\
**Post date:** [August 19, 2019, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-to-deploy-new-missiles-to-guam/831221/20 "2019-08-19T18:12:24Z")

</div>

**update**  
Ground launched cruise missile test conducted.

> <https://twitter.com/jeffmartindc/status/1163486778659147778?s=21>

Now the IRBM? At this rate, it’ll be a Minuteman III with the third stage deleted…

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-to-deploy-new-missiles-to-guam/831221.md?page=2)