Yusuf

I wonder if there are any programs running to produce any stealth missiles whether tactical or strategic.
If its possible to make stealth plane, then it should be possible to make stealth missiles.right?
Imagine a Raptor firing a stealth AMRAAM. Or Stealth ICBMs to beat any ABMs.

Would change the way wars are fought completely.

HistoricalDavid

Stealthing large ballistic missiles is a no-no. Their exhaust plume is so hot it can literally be detected from space, and that's how their launches were and are tracked by the superpowers since the '70s IIRC - via IR imaging on satellites. I suppose if you did stealth it it would make mid-course tracking more difficult but the trick is to make a stealth setup capable of withstanding the stresses. On the re-entry phase, airframe heating from air resistance is probably so high IR tracking is again invoked.

As for AAMs in general, their high speed produces airframe heating making them fairly visible on IR anyway, though their small size means they are pretty low RCS anyway. As far as I'm aware, missile warning systems are passive. It probably wouldn't change the way wars are fought at all.

However, the AGM-129, which has recently been retired, was a stealth cruise missile with an extraordinarily low RCS, mounted on the USAF's B-52s. Most cruise missiles dodge radar by flying low, at the cost of very high fuel consumption even at low speed. The -129's stealth meant it could fly nice and high, achieving a 2,000nm+ range in a missile roughly the same size as the 1,000-1,500nm TLAM. So stealth is possible but only useful in a select set of circumstances.

__________________
HD Ready?

Stitch

Also, as far as the ballistic missles go, their exhaust plume actually reflects radar energy, also.

I read on the SR-71, the biggest reflector of radar energy were the afterburner "shock diamonds" coming out the back of the J-58 engines, and there's nothing you can do to reduce that except throttle back, which would defeat the whole purpose of having a Mach 3+ aircraft (i.e.: it wouldn't be going Mach 3 anymore!).

B.Smitty

Many modern cruise missiles such as JASSM have LO features, to varying degrees.

bfng3569

any idea as to why these were retired?

would seem like a very effective and weapon?

Tin Man

Maybe they were not so effective? Dunno really. These weapons had a troubled inception, with numerous issues.

I don`t see any value is pursuing stealthy AAM`s for example. Firstly, if you hang them off a jet on the wing stations, they will negate the radar LO on that platform. Just because the weapons are stealthy doesn`t mean they won`t destroy the RCS of the launch aircraft. AMRAAMs launched silently would be just as difficult to detect as a stealthy missile, so no point in the additional expense.

I guess a stealth feature on most missiles just doesn`t help them significantly enough to fund them unless they fly low and slow. Now, electronic stealth, EMCON, etc, is a different animal.

__________________
"Liberty is a thing beyond all price.

Injecteer

ICBMs do not need stealth, they deploy tend of decoys to hide among.

HistoricalDavid

Assuming they were as reliable and accurate as Tomahawks, and they could be converted to carry conventional warheads, I would have thought them very useful weapons in long-range deep strikes, but you'd have to ask someone with expertise. Maybe it was cost-cutting.

Huh? Low RCS means you don't have to do low-level penetration, and it means you can better dodge AEW.

HistoricalDavid

A hypothetical stealthy ICBM (stealthy at all times and in all aspects) would be extremely useful. You could basically first-strike an otherwise well-quipped enemy, and the only warning he would have would be when the targets were hit. Contrast this with the current situation, where you're likely to have perhaps five minutes warning for IRBMs/close-launched SLBMs and 20-30 minutes for ICBMs/long-range SLBMs, where the target may have time to bunker down. Decoys only help survivability.

Of course, the general characteristics of ballistic missiles makes stealth a difficult if not impossible proposition.

Yusuf

Wouldnt making stealthy missiles do away with launching missiles to orbit and re-enter which creates the heat signature.
What holds back the possibility of making a 10,000 mile range missile with stealth features that does not have to leave the atmosphere and because of its stealth feature, doesnt have to hug the terrain to evade radar.

HistoricalDavid

That would be one bigass cruise missile. Possible, and has been looked at in the past. Trouble is, it would be limited to subsonic speeds and so would take aaaaaages to get anywhere, a period during which the enemy might monitor your comms traffic and realise something's up. Cruise missiles also do not carry as much firepower as equivalent BMs; compare 150kt TLAM or ACM versus 8 x 475 kt Trident II. (Would probably be larger on a 10,000nm missile but not by much.)

One idea is to have B-2 stealth bombers on patrol armed with stealth cruise missiles. However... the Russians realised how insanely dangerous this would be and lobbied for a ban on stealth weapons on stealth aircraft in one of the arms limitation treaties, can't remember which.

Yusuf

Supersonic cruise missiles are a reality now after the Indo-Russian Brahmos. There is talk of Hypersonic cruise missile

HistoricalDavid

How about supersonic stealthy cruise missiles?

Regardless, cruise missiles cannot ever match the speed of ballistics. Compare Mach 3ish sea skimmers with the Mach 20ish re-entry speed of ICBMs.

PS the Soviets operationally deployed plenty of supersonic cruise missiles since about the '60s, specifically AShMs. However, the problem with supersonics and especially hypersonics is the huge IR signature, which on a supersonic AShM can reportedly be seen over the horizon.

bfng3569

yes, but i thought this was in regards to cruise missles, not aam's?

HistoricalDavid

Hmm I think we're talking about missiles in general. The OP said 'tactical and strategic'... which is an odd designation to say the least.