Conventional ICBM

[Rebiu]

You can launch cruise missiles from planes, too, so you can send your B-52 out and launch from there if you need to do it sooner rather than a day or two from now. And you need to do that anyway of you can't get a ship or sub within the ~1000 km or so range of the cruise missile. Maybe that's the motivation: not putting people in harm's way while getting within shooting range.

I would think launching a mass produced ICBM would be cheaper at certain ranges and payload sizes.

[Rebiu]

These cruise missiles could then be directed to individual targets as if they were fired form a ship or plane. With a Hybrid ICBM/Cruise system, you could get effective air domination over any battlefield anywhere on Earth.

Interesting. You could take out air defenses, command and control, airfields, infrastructure, law minefields, cluster bombs, fuel air bombs. Who needs a nuke when you could have a one hundred ton fuel air bomb?

[Edtharan]

Interesting. You could take out air defenses, command and control, airfields, infrastructure, law minefields, cluster bombs, fuel air bombs. Who needs a nuke when you could have a one hundred ton fuel air bomb?

I think it would be more efficient use of an ICBM than just loading it up with a large warhead (conventional or not). The US millitary is going for more "inteligent" weapons, weapons designed for surgical strikes. Weapons with large warheads are the opposite of this approach.

 

If you could pack 10 smaller and smarter warheads in an ICBM it would be more effctive than 1 large "dumb" warhead that was more than 10 times as powerful than the smaller ones.

 

Also having these smaller smarter warheads in an ICBM would lower the risk factors for the troops on the side using them as they would not have to move close to the target (relativly speaking).

 

Also it would be cheaper to use a massproduced ICBM than to build, maintain and deploy a vehical capable of delivering the same payload (say an ship capable of launching cruise missiles). Once you factor the costs of the ship into it, the ICBMs would be cheaper (you might still have ships, but you would need less of them).

[swansont]

Also it would be cheaper to use a massproduced ICBM than to build, maintain and deploy a vehical capable of delivering the same payload (say an ship capable of launching cruise missiles). Once you factor the costs of the ship into it, the ICBMs would be cheaper (you might still have ships, but you would need less of them).

 

If that's the only role of the ship. But if they serve other roles, and they do, you're going to build them anyway.

[Rebiu]

I think it would be more efficient use of an ICBM than just loading it up with a large warhead (conventional or not). The US millitary is going for more "inteligent" weapons, weapons designed for surgical strikes. Weapons with large warheads are the opposite of this approach.

Good point. Those conventional bunker busters get pretty big though. Large bomb

[Edtharan]

If that's the only role of the ship. But if they serve other roles, and they do, you're going to build them anyway.

Yes, there are other roles for the ships, but there are ships designed primarily as weapon deployment platforms. It was these ships I was talking about and I even stated that some ships would still be nessesary.

 

Good point. Those conventional bunker busters get pretty big though.

True, plus with the kinetic energy from a fall from orbit they could even do damage without explosives.

[Sisyphus]

If that's the only role of the ship. But if they serve other roles, and they do, you're going to build them anyway.

 

Maybe some other roles could be fulfilled as well. Blowing up other ships? I think an ICBM could probably handle that...

[swansont]

Maybe some other roles could be fulfilled as well. Blowing up other ships? I think an ICBM could probably handle that...

 

I think not. ICBM's are targeted to specific points. Ships can move a reasonable distance in the time it would take to fire an ICBM and have it arrive at the pre-programmed target.

[swansont]

Yes' date=' there are other roles for the ships, but there are ships designed primarily as weapon deployment platforms. It was these ships I was talking about and I even stated that some ships would still be nessesary.

 

[/quote']

 

But they generally still serve as platforms for more than one type of weapon, and for more than one purpose. You have anti-air, anti-sub and anti-surface capabilities which would not be replaced by ICBMs. Only some of the strike capabilities would be replaced.

[Sisyphus]

I think not. ICBM's are targeted to specific points. Ships can move a reasonable distance in the time it would take to fire an ICBM and have it arrive at the pre-programmed target.

 

Maybe like targetted warheads deployed upon arrival in the atmosphere? I don't know how possible that is...

[Edtharan]

Maybe like targetted warheads deployed upon arrival in the atmosphere? I don't know how possible that is...

I think it would be posible in a limited area (not sure how large this area would be, but I think it would be large enough to cover the target area).

 

I think the cost analisys would come down to how often you would be thinking of useing the warheads in a time period. If you don't intend to use them often, then the one shot deal would be more cost effective, but if you are contemplating a frequent use, then the current systems are better.

 

It is why carriers are better than developing super long range aircraft. A carrier with shorter range aircraft is better because the aircraft are reuseable and will fly frequent missions. Where as the ICBMs were orriginally designed to deploy nucelear warheads, which have only ever been deployed twice (hiroshima and nagasaki) the use of a single shot deployment was more cost effective (and I do knowe that they did use air craft to deploy those 2 weapons).

 

However with the need for fast deployment in different areas of the globe, an ICBM has a definite tactical advantage. From just one location it could be launched to almost anywhere in the world at a momants notice. This need to rapid deployment could be the tipping factor in the economics of this concept.

[Pangloss]

I'm moving this over to the General forum since it's not a political discussion. I'll leave a stub in Politics to help people find it.

[Rebiu]

Often military forces are deployed as a show of force short of actual attack. Carriers have been sent to the areas of Taiwan and North Korea as a show of force often with the pretext of military exercises.

[Rebiu]

Maybe like targetted warheads deployed upon arrival in the atmosphere? I don't know how possible that is...[/quote']I think it would be possible in a limited area (not sure how large this area would be' date=' but I think it would be large enough to cover the target area).[/quote']The area would be the flight time of the missle multiplied by the maximum speed of the target. Unless the target can detect the launch the area would be even smaller in a practical estimation.

 

I think the cost analisys would come down to how often you would be thinking of useing the warheads in a time period. If you don't intend to use them often' date=' then the one shot deal would be more cost effective, but if you are contemplating a frequent use, then the current systems are better.[/quote']I the current delivery systems become vulnerable this may change as well. If we must continue to maintain the current Aircraft carrier force then that cost is not considered in the equation. If the Carrier fleet could be reduced then I suggest the missiles would be the better option.

It is why carriers are better than developing super long range aircraft. A carrier with shorter range aircraft is better because the aircraft are reuseable and will fly frequent missions. Where as the ICBMs were orriginally designed to deploy nucelear warheads, which have only ever been deployed twice (hiroshima and nagasaki) the use of a single shot deployment was more cost effective (and I do knowe that they did use air craft to deploy those 2 weapons).

There is a one-use aspect to any weapon deployment. The bomb is only used once. The difference is the cost in risk and dollars to deliver it. The greatest cost is the manpower in money and risk is in the manpower necessary to deliver the weapon. The aircraft requires a pilot, support aircraft, antiaircraft suppression aircraft, refueling aircraft, maintainence crew, carrier crew, carrier support, carrier defence destroyers and subs, refueling and supply ships, Naval bases. and much more. Long range aircraft take to long to get to the target and are larger more vulnurable. ICBM do not take any longer to reach the target.

 

However with the need for fast deployment in different areas of the globe' date=' an ICBM has a definite tactical advantage. From just one location it could be launched to almost anywhere in the world at a momants notice. This need to rapid deployment could be the tipping factor in the economics of this concept.[/quote']There are certain costs to deploying a limited carrier fleet as well. Some say the current administration felt pressure to free up the carriers patroling the no fly zone because they were need to deter Chinese agression toward Taiwan. Bin Laden claimed his attacks were revenge for the basing of US forces in Saudi Arabia including airbases.

[Rebiu]

Every adversary the United States has is developing it missile forces to counter our air supremacy. The United States already possesses the best ballistic missile technology. The current military leadership favors manpower intensive legacy technology. If we cannot keep up with our adversaries more cost efficient strategies we may eventually be forced to follow their example.

[Rebiu]

Found a link Ultimate Standoff Weapon.