Yes. But is Iran willing to assume that "if"?
I don't know.
And a weapon that is only useful in first strike mode and cannot be relied upon for retaliatory strikes is strategically crippled.
But politically useful.
Ballistic missile first strikes with conventional warheads would be bloody stupid for Iran to use (wasn't the argument that they have strategic value to provide disincentives to others to strike first?) because they would provoke a military response but wouldn't do much real damage, and nukes can probably get close enough with inertial guidance so GPS isn't much of a concern there.
A better point, to be sure.
You don't have to turn all of GPS off.
The impact, globally, on all users of GPS is non trivial if you "just shut it off." It's all pervasive.
The military and civilian signals are different, and the military signal can be encrypted. Turning off the civilian signal won't stop the military signal. And if the military has been smart about this, they don't even have to turn off the entire civilian signal, they can silence just the birds over Iran.
Only if you know, suspect, that is how the guidance at the TARGET end is going, which means turn off the GPS over Israel in the scenario I mention, an attack on Israel's MoD.
Once again, the terminal guidance of a falling body, see also GPS guidance for a 2000 lb bomb (velocity vector a bit different, of course) is all that GPS is needed for in the above strike package. Even if GPS fails, or gets no signal, the missile still hits sorta close.
Lastly, of course, while GPS receivers are indeed quite common, none of the receivers on the civilian market are able to operate above about 60,000 ft and faster than 515 m/s. This makes them unsuitable for use in ballistic missiles. So Iran would need to develop their own GPS receivers. And, well, they aren't exactly known for their electronics industry.
Zigg, look at what the GPS guidance is supposed to achieve. They only need to receive the signal as I described, in end game, within the parameters you so rightly point out. If you think the end game, roughly a vertical track, with little lateral displacement, is the same problem as moving 515 m/s laterally, OK, maybe it's a bit trickier than my simple outline investigates. Your average F-16 dropping a GPS weapon puts the ballistic weapon into a basket by flying to a "spot" in three dimensional space. Your TBM, Scud, for example, does likewise. As I have not gone all stubby penci on this, it may well be that the number of seconds remaining in the end game from roughly 60K feet is exceeded by the seconds and fractions needed to get that last correction in, at that terminal downward velocity, with the fins/airfoils at supersonic speed. I haven't field tested this, of course.
Getting to the
end game position remains the function of all the INS and aiming in the first place. The point wasn't to guide missile from launch to hit with GPS. That isn't necessary. You adapt an already extant tech to a falling body.
NO, you won't get the extra cheese accuracy of US mil GPS, when finely tuned, whose CEP is
not gonna say it's nobody's business wonderful.
Look at my scenario, and look at the CEP you need.
I also nowhere stipulated this as a one trick pony, but to be crystal clear, as an adjunct capability to present capability.
It need not be gold plated to work. Foxbat taught us that.
Also note: using something
other than GPS, US ballistic missile warheads, in the seventies, could reasonably expect to land in about a tennis court sized target (OK, two together).
DR
