Tin Man

Not really. A low observable cruise missile will still be far more survivable flying a terrain hugging profile than a mission at medium altitude. At low level you only have to think about radar stealth from above, at higher altitudes you have to build in all aspect stealth, much more expensive.
Look at Storm Shadow? Maybe ask yourself why its mission profile is terrain matching at low level even though it is a stealthy design?
Remember that there aren`t many cruise missiles around with F-22 stealth levels that will enable you to fly them at higher alts`. Higher flying cruise missiles just makes it easier for a defender, low RCS or not.

Convair/GE built the original AGM-129s. These were so troublesome, the DoD invited other contractors to build them. Hughes and Raytheon may have been the other folks involved, I can`t remember. The 129s suffered from structural problems and other issues. I think the basic design may have been flawed but I am guessing, it could have been more quality control issues.

There was a huge test failure that ended up being quite embarrassing. The design was very ambitious though, with some really neat features. It was and will remain very sensitive technology, so we can only guess at some of the issues involved.

Eventually the USAF got rid of these missiles, under funding pressure from congress, a lack of a viable mission and the end of the cold war. IMO. The AGM-129 B was supposedly built to do a classified mission with a one off nuclear warhead type, but it could have just been designed for a special conventional, non-nuclear mission. The details on the B are not at all clear, except that it was canned.

.

__________________
"Liberty is a thing beyond all price.

Yusuf

Wouldnt hiding the IR signature be part of making the missile stealthy? What are the ways of hiding IR signature? Something like using the cryogenic fuel to cool the missile for example. Im no expert but just wondering what can be possible

HistoricalDavid

You're correct, stealth usually refers to RCS but in fact must be applied to the whole gamut of detection capabilities. Put simply, if you have an airframe travelling at Mach 3, then making it IR-invisible is simply impossible. Your idea was already tried in the SR-71 and it still was a very, very hot object.

Is it low RCS or truly stealthy like the -129?

Good info, but it still confirms my suspicion that the concept is sound. The execution, in the case of that missile, was not.

__________________
HD Ready?

Tin Man

Storm Shadow is pretty stealthy. `129 levels? That isn`t public consumption and never will be. It looks to have RAM coatings, possibly, the shaping is certainly an effort at a low RCS design. It still won`t be flown at medium alts`. We won`t know if the AGM-129 was successful at higher Alts`or not. I still suspect it would have performed better at lower mission altitudes.
Remember that defensive radar only got better. It is a game of diminishing returns. An F-22 will still be detected at 10 miles at certain aspects. Certainly less so with a low RCS missile but why take the chance? Stay down low!

A heavily defended target will be ringed with gap filling radars that will detect medium level intruders no matter how stealthy they are at current tech` levels. That is to say nothing of electro-optical/IR detection.


The concept would have been sound 20 years ago, to fly a low observable missile at medium alts as long as it flew a meandering flight path around defensive radars, much like even the B-2 still does today. The clue may be in the cancellation of the `129. The USAF doesn`t like to do away with very capable systems.
Although I concede there may have been other considerations David, such as the effectiveness of the missile or monetary issues. Maybe we will find out in 30 years!
A missile with super stealth that can only be detected at very short ranges would prove a sound concept but I don`t think they exist. Any missile, with IR diffusing or not will have a detectable IR or UV signature, especially when you consider that IR detection systems can discern a temperature change of less than one degree.....

ArmchairGeneral

I have a feeling it has a lot to do with the end of the Cold War reduction in nuclear forces, like the decommissioning of the Peacekeeper and some of the Ohios. Its primary mission is just not as prominent as it once was.

How are missiles different from aircraft in this regard?

__________________
"Apocalyptic thought is curiously pleasurable."
-Theodore Dalrymple

bfng3569

what better way to destroy fixed radar instalations and other highly defended targets than a stealth cruise missile that they never see coming until its to late?

GGTharos

And it can drop its weapons on a ground target from 60nm. Nasty huh?
It's not going to fly low. THere's no point in it doing so, and there's even less point in a cruise missile doing so if its stealth.

What's a 'gap filling radar'? Stealth 'creates' gaps between radars that you CANNOT fill. The more stealth you are, the bigger the gap. A detection at 10nm gives you a minute's warning maybe. Not much time at all when it comes to surprise attack - in fact, you're basically hosed.
So how stealth you are DOES matter.

Sure they exist. Any small missile fits the description. Heck, a maverick missile fits, and even a tomahawk fits. The AGM-129 was to take this a step further, and ... take a hint here ... all anti-cruise missile weapons are radar guided. IR is not good enough - the cruise missile is a SMALL target. And that matters - in other words, when operating an IR system, target surface area is important, as well as aspect with respect to eh exchaust. IR systems could differentiate such temperatures for a long time now, somehow that isn't detering stealth designers

ArmchairGeneral

It would work great, but we try to avoid using nuclear weapons when at all possible.

Tin Man

That will work if you have an unshakable belief in an "invulnerable" stealth missile....The best defence has been and still is, flying low. This reduces a defensive radars footprint still further.


Gap fillers are smaller mobile radars that are positioned to give the defender coverage that the larger, fixed surveillance radars cannot give. Think terrain issues. In valleys or mountainous areas. Any decent IADS has plenty of them.

Any detection no matter how brief sets into motion a defensive response including vectoring in AEW&C aircraft, puts the defender on an alert footing and brings all your defensive tricks to a state of readiness. Sure, some missiles get through but so will non-stealthy missiles. Anti-cruise missile defence has been well thought out by both the US and the former USSR.

Sure a stealthy missile gives you advantages, but an undetectable one flying at medium alts`? Have yet to see one of those....


Actually, cruise missiles can be taken down with IR missiles. A 9X, ASRAAM or the latest Python will have no trouble whatsoever with cruise missiles.
There is a video doing the rounds of an Israeli test with a Python which uses it`s LOAL feature. The shooter launches the Python way out in front of the target cruise missile, the Python does a complete 180, zooms past the target, does another 180 and vanishes up the cruise missiles tailpipe.

There is no point in designing a stealthy aircraft or missile without paying attention to IR suppression or at least paying it lipservice.
I do feel that people underestimate the capabilities of modern IR/electro-optical systems and missiles.

Tin Man

Unfortunately the AGM-129 wasn`t designed to take out radar sites. It was designed to carry a nuclear warhead in the deep strike role into heavily defended IADS and attack "special" targets with surprise. The missile was , in my view, an excellent first strike weapon, if it worked, although the proximity of the shooting B-52s may have given the game away somewhat, but you would never know they had launched....hopefully.

That is another issue with the AGM-129, your enemy knows your bombers are carrying them, your bombers are not stealthy, your bombers are orbiting along his border. The enemy also knows the `129s range so he knows the targets you can hit. He has a map with his prime `129 targets, he can prepare his defence along those lines...Hell, he will be expecting them to be snaking their way across his border. If he knows they are coming, it gives him an underdogs chance....All this if that is the only level of attack and his IADS isn`t being taken apart at the same time, admittedly.

Now, a submarine launched AGM-129 would have been the ideal. Very hard to counter that.

GGTharos

Most air defenses don't use them. Rather it's a Stinger or Igla or something of the form which won't even have a proximity fuze. AAM's are high-class typically. The USSR's main cruise-missile busting fighter is the MiG-31 ... I don't think the MiGs and Flankers are currently well-equipped to handle cruise missiles. I would imagine such things would be left to SA-15 systems, maybe a modern SA-19.

Tin Man

Agreed, most nations don`t have those nuts and bolts but the first division fellas` had them.

Spot on, `Tharos, the Mig-31 is the main cruise missile killer for Russia. They had an excellent doctrine for counter-cruise missile ops` AFAIK. How effective it is in 2008 I don`t know, so I am with you on that. I think they pin their hopes on inner layer defences such as Tor-M1. God knows that systems effectiveness.

The US certainly hasn`t been idle in devising countermeasures for systems such as these.