Thread: Stealth Missiles

Originally Posted by bfng3569

any idea as to why these were retired?

would seem like a very effective and weapon?

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.

Originally Posted by Tin Man

I guess a stealth feature on most missiles just doesn`t help them significantly enough to fund them unless they fly low and slow.

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

Originally Posted by Injecteer

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Originally Posted by Yusuf

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

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.