Would there be any advantages to creating missiles that use stealth technology?

[Calin]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
http://in.news.yahoo.com/040613/137/2dm0o.html

http://www.frontlineonnet.com/fl1813/18131300.htm
The BrahMos missile, travelling at 2.8 to three times the speed of sound (Mach 2.8 to 3), is three times faster than a subsonic cruise missile such as the Tomahawk of the U.S. It has nine times the kill power because the kill power is proportional to the square of the velocity.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/india/brahmos.htm

http://www.brahmos.com/home.html

The cruise missile's kill power is mainly proportional with the warhead. There are cases when a cruise missile would attack a bunker, when the speed might play a role - but the warhead is not stiff enough to survive going thru several yards of hardened concrete.

Stealth cruise missiles (or ICBM) are usefull if launched from submarines - the controlling radars won't find so easily where the sub was at launch time. Other than that, speed makes a much better protection that stealth, and speed has more advantages from a tactical standpoint (your missile will hit the situation 5 minutes from now, not 15 minutes from now). Strategically, there is little difference (no one can move a factory in 15 minutes, or deploy anti-missile weapons with such a short notice).

Calin

Calin

 

[dderidex]

Except SLBMs aren't going to be detected by *anybodies* radar. The submarine shooting a missile at Moscow (or, Tehran, Pyongyang, wherever) will likely be in the south pacific...not anywhere NEAR hostile forces.

About the only way to possibly find a nuclear missile sub launching missiles is by having your own sub (or ASW aircraft) somehow in the area - which is, of course, why Russia sent sub sortied all over the world during the Cold War. The process of launching a strike of nuclear missiles is a bit time consuming (roughly 15 min) and on the noisy side. Which is, underwater, a Very Bad Thing (tm).

The odds of an enemy surface vessel being anywhere near the area of a missile launch with its radar active is....well, nearly next to none.

Missile 'speed' DOES play a pretty substantial role in its damage potential in the anti-ship role. But not quite in the way you'd expect. A 100-ton missile flying at your ship at mach 5 has a LOT of momentum. Those cute little phalanx turrets all over a ship? Yeah, sure, it may shoot up the warhead of the missile enough to detonate it....but it's basically a machine gun. Now, if you use a machine gun to break something up (at machine gun range) that is over 100 tons and flying at you at mach 5....exactly how much damage reduction do you REALLY think you've done?

 

[nan0bug]

Unless you're talking about puncturing through a reinforced structure like a tank or a bunker, any missles kill power will be directly related to the size of the warhead and the angle of attack. The velocity has little to do with it.

One of the ways they try to minimize collateral damage is by changing the angle that the missle or bomb attacks at, to reduce splash damage to surrounding areas. Sometimes velocity will have a small part in this, by using a delayed detonation and high velocity to drive the warhead into the ground, causing the explosion to be a lot more contained.. Beyond that or armor/structure piercing, it doesn't make sense to say a missle has '9 times the kill power' because of the speed it travels at.

 

[AndrewR]

The patriot missles didn't work quite as well as we have been led to believe. There was only a 10% success rate, I believe. Also, the patriot missles had the tendency to target friendlies.

Try commenting on something when you know the facts. The Patriot PAC-2 missiles used in Desert Storm were indeed not all that effective because they were not intended to be anti-ballistic missile defense so the warheads were not optimized for targeting a relatively strong target. The PAC-3 versions used in OIF were indeed very effective in targeting and neutralizing incoming ballistic missile warheads, destroying at least 8 out of 9 incoming targets (there was inconclusive evidence on the 9th warhead). Testimony before Senate Armed Services Committee

The issue of "targeting friendlies" has nothing to do with the technical capabilities of the system and involves command and control more than anything else.

Or does a missle fly too fast that anti-missiles cannot destroy it making stealth unnecessary?

Stealth is not unnecessary. They have had numerous successful intercepts of ICBM warheads using the technology of the soon-to-be-implemented ground based missile defense system that will be installed at Ft. Greeley, Alaska. The warheads were traveling well in excess of Mach 5. There are no systems in the world, other than ICBM/SLBM warheads, that fly at that speed.

Ask yourself one question: What do we use to detect incoming missiles or aircraft and have done so since WWII? Has anyone ever heard of PAVE PAWS or AEGIS? Look them up and then answer the question.

 

[Strk]

Originally posted by: UglyCassanova

Originally posted by: So
Would be useful for missiles that could be countered. Like for a cruise missile that was going to assasinate someone...like a decapitation strike, we'd not want to give them warning to get to bunkers.

A decapitation strike?

It's what you call it so that assasinations are legal. There is an executive order banning assasinations, so when it happens, it will get tagged something like decapitation strike.

 

[Fenixgoon]

journalists dont know math.. they really need to stay away from it. someone go kick that journalistin the nuts if they're a guy, and explain to them what Ke=m(v)2 means. I'd be more than glad to! 😛

 

[virtuamike]

Stealth is too expensive. Just make anti-anti-missle-missles.

 

[AndrewR]

*SIGH* More misinformation.

Nuke missiles that are fired from submarines or silos, shoot not quite straight up into space, and breaks up into 10 or so warheads at the apogee, and they reenter the atmosphere over target cities.

Not every ICBM or SLBM has 10 warheads. Minuteman III, for instance, has 3 warheads maximum. Trident D4 and Peacekeeper have the capacity for 10, but START limits MIRV carrying for both parties. I can't write off the cuff about Russian weapons, but I know that not all of their systems carry 10 warheads.

That makes them extremely difficult to detect, anyway, and makes interception impossible.

Tell that to the missile defense folks who have proven the concept on numerous occasions.

Both bad things when you are trying to hit an incoming warhead. All reasons why the current 'Star Wars' program concentrates on destroying the launch vehicle rather than the re-entering warheads.

Wrong again. There are aspects of the entire missile defense program which seek to target the boost phase (Airborne Laser, for instance), but the system in Alaska is not one of them.

30 nautical miles isn't a very long reaction time at ALL given that is the soonest you could possibly detect it.

Assuming the target is the only thing doing the detection and the missile's entire profile is at sea level, which is horribly inefficient. Mach 5 at sea level for 30 NM? Do you have any idea the amount of propulsion required for that? And you're worried about weight from stealth materials being an issue? Tell me: Exactly which systems are you describing with this Mach 5 for 30 NM at sea level?

(technically most anti-ship missiles fall into this catagory, but as the media uses the term to primarily refer to the land-attack variant of cruise missiles, so shall we)

Most anti-ship missiles do not fall into this category if you are discussing numbers. The US military, for instance, has many more Harpoons than Tomahawks simply because Harpoons are less expensive.

The 'radar horizon' on land for missile defense units is even shorter...

Have you ever heard of planes or mountains?

Land targets almost never know they have been fired on until things start spontaneously exploding.

Assuming it's a surprise attack without hostilities being initiated earlier.

 

[B00ne]

that would be quite a waste of resources. missiles launches are easily detected from infrared emissions - especially from space

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: B00ne
that would be quite a waste of resources. missiles launches are easily detected from infrared emissions - especially from space

The early waring system is just for an indication of launch, originally designed to watch for ICBM launches. I don't think it can be used to track accurately enough for interception.

 

[K1052]

Not every ICBM or SLBM has 10 warheads. Minuteman III, for instance, has 3 warheads maximum. Trident D4 and Peacekeeper have the capacity for 10, but START limits MIRV carrying for both parties. I can't write off the cuff about Russian weapons, but I know that not all of their systems carry 10 warheads.

IIRC the Trident D5s can carry a max of 12 RVs, though limited to 8 by treaty right now I think.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: notfred

Originally posted by: FishTaco
Might be useful for cruise missiles.

Yeah, how fast does a Tamahawk fly? It's ridiculously slow if I remember correctly.

They are subsonic.

 

[GoSharks]

Originally posted by: dderidex
Missile 'speed' DOES play a pretty substantial role in its damage potential in the anti-ship role. But not quite in the way you'd expect. A 100-ton missile flying at your ship at mach 5 has a LOT of momentum. Those cute little phalanx turrets all over a ship? Yeah, sure, it may shoot up the warhead of the missile enough to detonate it....but it's basically a machine gun. Now, if you use a machine gun to break something up (at machine gun range) that is over 100 tons and flying at you at mach 5....exactly how much damage reduction do you REALLY think you've done?

wow that is a really big missile... considering that an M1a2 tank weighs in at ~70 tons :roll::disgust:

 

[dderidex]

Originally posted by: GOSHARKS
wow that is a really big missile... considering that an M1a2 tank weighs in at ~70 tons :roll::disgust:

Indeed, I wonder where I was getting that number from. Too late at night, I guess.

Anyway, 7 tons (SS-N-19) at Mach 3 is still a very bad thing to have hit the side of your ship.

Originally posted by: AndrewR
Not every ICBM or SLBM has 10 warheads. Minuteman III, for instance, has 3 warheads maximum. Trident D4 and Peacekeeper have the capacity for 10, but START limits MIRV carrying for both parties. I can't write off the cuff about Russian weapons, but I know that not all of their systems carry 10 warheads.

Hello? I said '10 OR SO', meaning more or less.

Wrong again. There are aspects of the entire missile defense program which seek to target the boost phase (Airborne Laser, for instance), but the system in Alaska is not one of them.

AFAIK, 'the system in Alaska' is still attempting to destroy the warhead before it seperates, not after re-entry. In any case, few countries possess 3d radar capability sufficient to target warheads entering the atmosphere at high speeds.

Assuming the target is the only thing doing the detection and the missile's entire profile is at sea level, which is horribly inefficient. Mach 5 at sea level for 30 NM? Do you have any idea the amount of propulsion required for that? And you're worried about weight from stealth materials being an issue?

Detecting that a missile is on its way to you is...interesting, but doesn't do much good. You'd need to be able to track it at closer ranges in order to get your defensive missiles to intercept it, and it WILL be sea-skimming for the terminal phase (for most modern anti-ship missiles, anyway).

The US military, for instance, has many more Harpoons than Tomahawks simply because Harpoons are less expensive.

By any accepted definition I've seen of 'cruise missile', the Harpoon qualifies.

Assuming it's a surprise attack without hostilities being initiated earlier.

That doesn't tell you where the missiles are coming at you, and provide a firing solution.

 

[AndrewR]

You didn't answer the question about which missile flies at Mach 5. Still waiting.

Hello? I said '10 OR SO', meaning more or less.

10 is the maximum that I am aware of, not the middle number. Just pointing out an overstatement. There are START limits as well (easily rectified, of course, but not on an emergency basis).

AFAIK, 'the system in Alaska' is still attempting to destroy the warhead before it seperates, not after re-entry. In any case, few countries possess 3d radar capability sufficient to target warheads entering the atmosphere at high speeds.

Consider this an education then. The GMD system is intended to intercept warheads after separation from the main missile. At least one of the tests involved discerning the actual warheads from decoys.

Detecting that a missile is on its way to you is...interesting, but doesn't do much good...and it WILL be sea-skimming for the terminal phase (for most modern anti-ship missiles, anyway).

Perhaps you need to familiarize yourself with modern radar. As for the terminal phase, it's NOT 30 NM, so therefore the missile is able to be intercepted before it reaches that stage.

By any accepted definition I've seen of 'cruise missile', the Harpoon qualifies.

A "cruise" missile must "cruise" therefore a missile boosted by a solid rocket motor is not a "cruise" missile. By that definition, the AMRAAM and the Sidewinder are cruise missiles. A cruise missile uses a turbofan or similar engine to go long ranges at subsonic speeds with perhaps a terminal supersonic phase (fired by a solid rocket engine). A Tomahawk is a cruise missile. A SILKWORM is a cruise missile. An Exocet or a Harpoon is not.