It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

stealth ICBMs

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 03:27 AM
link   
Stealth cruise missile are the way to go IMO. ICBMs are by nature are not stealthy the soviets with their satellites would have detected a launch so forget about a re-entry they would have know long before that.

But stealth cruise missile could offer a real stealth nuclear first strike. The US has ben working on this for along time all the way back to first Gen stealth.Senior Prom

With a stealth cruise missile and the right stealth platform to deliver it (B-2 Bomber)
you could achieve a devastating nuclear first strike. Consider the number of B-2s the Air Force originally wanted 133 of them each B-2 can carry 16 cruise missile for a total of 2,128 nuclear hits in a first strike for the whole fleet. The already stealth B-2 could launch these missiles from hundreds of miles away so they wouldn't even have to get close to Radar sites. Used right that could have been a crippling first strike for even the Soviet union, chance are they would still hit us back but it wouldn't be MAD any longer and sub and surface launched ICBMs would finish up the job.

Now in the number we have of B-2 thats just not possible anymore. It could still give us a nuclear first strike with a nuclear armed N Korea or Iran Maybe China.

The B-2 was a Cold war weapon design of the worst kind a nuclear first strike weapon. Dont buy that line it was created to hunt down Soviet nuclear mobile missile launchers the B-2 was far too slow to react to such a threat in any nuclear war and those missiles would have been launched at the US long before the B-2s ever got there.




[edit on 28-6-2006 by ShadowXIX]




posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 06:14 AM
link   
im sure US has better stealth cruise missiles than they claim to have . . . . .

www.lowobservable.com...

this site has a list of the so called stealth missiles . . .

cant say if they are as stealth to get past air defences or not . . . i mean cmon . . the russian supersonic stealth thing . . (yakhont) . . dosent look stealthy in any way . . . . btw . .they say russian anti ship supersonic cruise missiles are the best in the world . . .



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by srsairbags
cant say if they are as stealth to get past air defences or not . . . i mean cmon . . the russian supersonic stealth thing . . (yakhont) . . dosent look stealthy in any way . . . .


Looks can be deceiving, particularly from such a poor photograph.


It seems that the LO treatment is limited to reducing edges for scatter, but there may also be RAM incorporated.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The heat of reentry is going to make it stand out on IR brighter than the sun.

IOW, a stealth one could remain undetected up until is re-enters the atmosphere, which seems like a pretty good advantage no? Could, say, russia launch its nukes in the time it would take to detect a nation vapourizing barrage of such icbms?


An ICBM could be launched from anywhere, and you're looking at probably 40-45 minutes

So, conceivably, a super-power could launch a slew of stealth icbms that wouldn't be detected until around 20 minutes of hitting? Is that even enough time to see it, determine that its a real threat, make the decision to counter-strike, and then actually get the nukes in the air?



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
i think that supersonic cruise misiles somehow are the most dangerous form of cruise missiles out there . . . gives you very little reaction time . . . also counetrmeasures will be limited for dealing with a supersonic target . . .what say . . ? ? ? . . also only a handfull of these exist in russia (they say most of them were scrapped) . . . btw what about US . . . is the tamahawk or ACM supersonic ? ? ?



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by srsairbags
. is the tamahawk or ACM supersonic ? ? ?


Both the Tomahawk and ACM are kept subsonic with a top speed of about 500 MPH. Super sonic you get a tell tale sonic boom and IR detection can start to become a problems since you start to heat up at high supersonic speeds.

Not that either of those problems couldnt be solved. Lockheed is working on a Quiet super sonic aircraft for civilian uses and with the right cooling system and material IR sig could be vastly reduced.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 05:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The heat of reentry is going to make it stand out on IR brighter than the sun.

IOW, a stealth one could remain undetected up until is re-enters the atmosphere, which seems like a pretty good advantage no? Could, say, russia launch its nukes in the time it would take to detect a nation vapourizing barrage of such icbms?


An ICBM could be launched from anywhere, and you're looking at probably 40-45 minutes

So, conceivably, a super-power could launch a slew of stealth icbms that wouldn't be detected until around 20 minutes of hitting? Is that even enough time to see it, determine that its a real threat, make the decision to counter-strike, and then actually get the nukes in the air?


Both Russia, and the US have sattelites in geosynchronus (sp?) orbits that are capable of detecting the launch bloom of an ICBM. Even if the warhead is stealthy, you still have a HUGE burst of heat on launch, to get it up to speed to leave the atmosphere. You can overwhelm any defenses with enough missiles, but you aren't going to get away with keeping the launch a secret. In fact there were a couple of tests that were picked up on launch that ALMOST started a nuclear war. Thank god the commanders with their fingers on the buttons waited a few minutes before pushing them.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 07:25 PM
link   
ICBM's are easily detectable in their boost and reentry phases, but most of their flight time is spent outside the atmosphere - where as ch1466 pointed out they can be made much more difficult to see. The warhead bus can also be made to change it's trajectory significantly during this phase of it's flight, thus making it difficult to target - if you can't see it, and you don't know where it is, it's hard to do anything about it, even if you know when and where it was launched.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Even if you don't know if it turns, or can't see it on radar, you still know it's coming. You saw the launch and boost phase, so you know that there is a missile in the air. You might not shoot it down, or know for sure where it's going, but you know it's up there.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by srsairbags
ok . . fine . . now if you had to choose between an ICBM and a stealth cruise missile . . what would you choose and why . . . ? ? ?


Cruise missiles are more useful in conditions other than general nuclear war. ICBMs, provided they are reliable, are more secure and economical to sustain a continuous deterrent force with.

Cruise are also about to be supplemented if not supplanted as direct strike weapons by the coming generation of aeroballistic weapons which function more or less like a depressed trajectory SLBM off a boomer and may have a potential (Skybolt etc.) airlaunch mode as well. This will take the engagement ranges out to 800-1,000nm and roughly 10 minutes or so which makes coastal cities impossible to defend even with a blue water navy and also largely hostages inner continental zones (Asia) to air delivery from beyond local or area air defenses.

Sub vs. Supersonics is going to depend more on launch mode for specific penetration values. You cannot bend a weapon around the terrain at supersonic speeds as tightly as you can a subsonic one. But at altitude, you can waveride to significantly greater distances (SRAM as a 15-30-75-300nm class weapon). LO is effected by grazing angle of the apertures and a decent coastal radar system will pick up most CM as they go feet dry if the emplacing party knows what to look for in terms of TERCOM update zones and siting locations (in a nuclear war however, these will be among the first systems to go lights out).

The key thing to understand with nuclear weapons is that radioisotopic analysis will tag the country of origin and processing type on most munitions and this more or less invalidates the notion of 'safe launch' from either a covert boat or an acknowledged silo, even if you can overcome the DSP and BSIRS.

Thus, depending on the number of hits, casualty count and strategic force status of the country of origin, we may or may not obliterate the material source _in addition to_ 'the triggerman' but someone will pay and it will not be a tit-for-tat retaliation but an overwhelming response, especially for runt nations like Iran or Korea. To teach the survivors to count the costs before going-stupid in like fashion.

As a measure of this, a single 1-2MT airburst will completely decapitate city-states in a fashion that typically ruins their command economies. While a surface or digger wardet (for silo kills say) will spread radiologics that also threaten the surrounding region for hundreds of miles. A spread of 10-20, 320-370KT, MIRVs will more or less end a specific nation's participation in human history altogether and increase the downwind issues for neighbors by a factor of 100.

In this, _limited_ ICBM use is actually less a hazard for U.S. than they are for those who (cough, Russia, China, France) who provide the technology and materials to make a mouse-roar threat operational.

There are no free rides in a SSOR (Single Superpower Overwhelming Response) scenario and the countries in near proximity to those bringing on such an retaliatory attack would be well advised to be aware of this because the best way to teach a terrorist the limits of his own power is to make it very literally a threat to his entire belief system. Be it a national gene pool, religion or ethnic/language group. The U.S. could sneeze atomically and the 'accidental mistargeting' kizunetite would end Islam outside the PacRim for instance.

Strategic Power doctrine is one of utter _non-use_ in the face of conventional force alternatives. We have mastered that discipline. Those second and third world nations which support or enact terrorism (including the threat of same) as a function of avoiding the investment in economic mass sufficient to afford a large conventional arsenal (or _trade and diplomacy_) to achieve their aims 'honorably' do not deserve the trust that nuclear weapons requires.

They just don't have the national gravitasse to lose big through misuse of these systems. And so, having so little to lose, like a reckless teenager, they cannot be allowed to position themselves to ruin the existence of those fuddy-duddy adults who have more.


KPl.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   
im sure that the babur (pakistan). . . happens to be a tamahawk missile sold by the US to the pakis . . . its soo similar . . . and im sure missile duplications aint that simple (dont believe that story) . . that paki scientists could have pulled it off . . .






posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Stealth cruise missile are the way to go IMO. ICBMs are by nature are not stealthy the soviets with their satellites would have detected a launch so forget about a re-entry they would have know long before that.

But stealth cruise missile could offer a real stealth nuclear first strike. The US has ben working on this for along time all the way back to first Gen stealth.Senior Prom

With a stealth cruise missile and the right stealth platform to deliver it (B-2 Bomber)
you could achieve a devastating nuclear first strike. Consider the number of B-2s the Air Force originally wanted 133 of them each B-2 can carry 16 cruise missile for a total of 2,128 nuclear hits in a first strike for the whole fleet. The already stealth B-2 could launch these missiles from hundreds of miles away so they wouldn't even have to get close to Radar sites. Used right that could have been a crippling first strike for even the Soviet union, chance are they would still hit us back but it wouldn't be MAD any longer and sub and surface launched ICBMs would finish up the job.

Now in the number we have of B-2 thats just not possible anymore. It could still give us a nuclear first strike with a nuclear armed N Korea or Iran Maybe China.

The B-2 was a Cold war weapon design of the worst kind a nuclear first strike weapon. Dont buy that line it was created to hunt down Soviet nuclear mobile missile launchers the B-2 was far too slow to react to such a threat in any nuclear war and those missiles would have been launched at the US long before the B-2s ever got there.




[edit on 28-6-2006 by ShadowXIX]
Well that depends since thew B-2 is stealthy and can fly at low altitude to avoid EW radar and launch ACM 129's at Russia . it's a first atrike weapon under some circumstances of course and not all. It's for a strategic bomber capability no doubt.Im sure B-2's,B-1's, and B-52's with ACM 129's could be sused in a decapittion or retaliatory strike.Anyway Russia has 8,000 ABM interceptors since they can datalink their S300/S300v/S400 to their pechora and hen house to attack ICBM RV's which is illegal under the treaty. You would need a good cruise missile strike to take out the battle magaement radars to cripple ABM capability to ensure a good ICBM strike with Minuteman's.

[edit on 29-6-2006 by urmomma158]

[edit on 29-6-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 06:18 PM
link   
I was thinking what about a stealth orbital WMD platform?

Its would clearly be against the outer space treaty but Im convinced the US already has stealth recon satellites. Normal satellites are really, really easy to track so any decent military is going to no when your bird is over their secure sites and your never going to catch some out in the open they dont want you too see. Also since their so easy to track they are sitting ducks to any country with space capable rockets.

But with a stealth satellites they would have no clue. I dont see any technical reason why they couldnt build a satellites in fact it might be easier then working on a platform that flies in the atmosphere.

Maybe WMDs might be going to far because the @#$% the US would catch if such a program came to light but non-WMDs orbital stealth platforms (Lasers for example) are not banned under any treaty which the US is part too.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
It's pretty hard to stealth an ICBM. The heat of reentry is going to make it stand out on IR brighter than the sun.


Or perhaps we need to revise our definition of the term ICBM.



posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   
I think we should ditch silo's and go with mobile launchers.Not all ICBMs's justa good portion and harden our silo's more.



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Northrop-Grumman has a proposed missile defense grid that will be able to eliminate multiple threats - and, if thick enough, be able to nearly immunize the area from any ballistic missile threat - ICBM or otherwise.

It uses a combination of Satelites - several of such are used to detect a launch - then track the missile. An Aegis radar then tracks the target(s) in orbit and areas of interception are calculated. Once within range of defenses, a Kenetic Energy Interceptor - or an ICBM designed to take out another ICBM - starts off the attack. The Airborne laser takes out targets in closer proximity - backed up by ground based units that are slotted to replace the Patriot Missile System. The KEIs can be launched form mobile, fixed, and ship-based platforms.

For those of you into radar technology - Aegis is the most advanced known radar system. It's pretty much immunte to all forms of countermeasures and updated more often than your ISPs servers.

That, and add to it that many anti-ReV weapons come with a nuclear warhead.... you blow up the ReV AND the decoys - so no worries.... other than the EMP.... which is why you have to wonder what a Fusion warhead has to offer - and whether or not one has been developed in one of those black projects.

Here's a link with some videos of the technology - mostly computer simulations - with some at least halfway cool music (I like it... might not be your thing). www.northropgrumman.com...

The main page has some more links. I've also found Northrop-Grumman's site to become more difficult to navigate from a few years ago. They used to have a whole bank of information on previous aircraft - from WWI on up to the YF-23 and B-2 .... even civilian models they made. Now it's 'gone' and I keep running around in a circle trying to find their information these days. Maybe I'm not being observant enough....



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 05:13 PM
link   
Let's not forget the AN/SPY 3!!!!
www.globalsecurity.org...
I'll post some more on missile defense tommorow. Thaad is much more cpable than you think and they're builiding a missile with multiple interceptors!!!(midcourse phase)



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 02:39 AM
link   
what good is a missile defence if you cant detect the missile . . . . if you hava stealth and (subonic) extremely low altitude missile . . then you can effectively fool the defences . . . .



posted on Jul, 5 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   
Low-flying missiles are easily detected by AWACS planes. 'Stealth' is not 'invisible' - it's technically 'Low observable'. Every radar DOES detect our airplanes. However, the strength of the signal is so low that the radar filters it out as 'noise' up until a certain 'threshold' - where our planes are then NOT filtered out as noise. Although, a more effective filter is used on our AWACS planes. Since they are a look-down radar, a low-flying missile will not evade it - even though it will evade surface radars. Since there will be 'little' noise from the ocean - you have the radar filter out all contacts not moving at a speed consistent with that of a missile (100 knots would be REALLY hard for any kind of ship to pull off - so start there). Although that is a little over-simplified from someone who does not completely understand the inner-workings of radars - that is a way that we can track any surface contact.

With the advancements in information relay that are being made - as well as enhancements to our AWACS systems, the target can be designated and destroyed either from a surface or airborne system.

If you're dealing with a terrain-following missile - the same application works. An AWACS system - either a Global HAWK or an E-3 will be able to detect an incoming missile or aircraft using the same system. Our direct-fire systems (lasers) are fast enough to destroy the missile in under a second of it popping up over a cliff within line of sight (and range).

If you want to add in the use of the Airborne laser - which is, if I am understanding correctly, undergoing prototyping, - then you can destroy the missile as soon as it is detected by an AWACS plane, since your available line of sight is much greater.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 09:18 AM
link   
does the US have surface based air direct fire systems (laser installations) . . . ? ? ? where . . . ? ? ? (although have heard of airborne lasers)




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join