ICBM's - Obsolete?

[Khafee]

The purpose of this thread is to debate, that after the introduction of cruise missiles how effective is an ICBM?

Cruise Missiles can be launched from Aircrafts, Trucks, Ships & Subs, fly nap of the earth, and are extremely difficult to detect, given their RCS. On the -ve side, their range is limited in comparison to ICBM's i.e. 800km ~ 1500km+

ICBM's on the other hand, have exceptionally long range 5,000km+ but once launched can be detected by ground based radars, as well as satellites, making them easier to track and subsequently negate, directly or indirectly. Cruise missiles on the other hand, have a higher degree of stealth, and can literally arrive unannounced.

Please do not turn this into a "VS" thread.


@Horus @Icarus @Oscar @Icarus @waz

@Penguin @Taygibay @MilSpec @AUSTERLITZ @Bratva

@Paksanity @Viper0011. @Gufi @Blue Marlin @Akheilos

@Color_Less_Sky @DESERT FIGHTER @Desert Fox @DesertFox97 @AMDR

@Chinese-Dragon @Deino @WAJsal @TankMan @niaz

@The Deterrent @gambit @vostok @Basel @Indus Falcon

@Nihonjin1051 @Hu Songshan @cabatli_53 @Frogman@FrenchPilot

and all, looking forward to your comments.

Thank You

 

[The Last of us]

They're both different types of delivery systems. Advantage of a cruise missile is simply that they can be more difficult to detect relative to ballistic missiles, but that obviously has to do with the technological level of the nation being attacked by them. You see cruise missiles used alot more in conventional sense, this is due to what you said, they are alot more convenient and easier to carry in mass numbers. I am under the impression that an OTH radar can be used to detect such missile with relative ease. As far as I am aware, the difficulty in detecting a cruise missile is not in its RCS but its flying path, i.e low, terrain hugging etc. An ICBM on the other hand, is much faster and can be given a much higher payload than a cruise missile and thus can be fitted with decoys, MIRV etc. Thus for an ICBM it's the matter of what countermeasures on board to prevent interception of the warhead.
Simply put, Cruise missile are generally easy to intercept and difficult to detect and with ballistic missiles, it's the opposite.

I think given the development in anti ballistic missile tech, and depending on whether such techs are proliferated, ballistic missiles will obviously have a harder time in the future, but this is a cat and mouse game. The sides who have ballistic missile tech are constantly working to make their missile have the capability to penetrate the shields. Just look at Iran-Israel.

Could Tehran’s EMAD Missile Outsmart Israel’s Arrow 3? | Defense Update:

I think for the nations who have these techs for cruise missile, ballistic missile, they will simple use them both, whereas those who are client states and have to chose a system to purchase between ballistic vs cruise, then it all depends on the air defence capabilities of the side they want to use against and other factors.

Just my thoughts. I could written more, but I am a bit busy at the moment.

 

[Random Jan-e-mann]

as a political approach obsolete but as a strategic approach not cruise missile defiantly a game changer but as a global weapon no a big no. implementing your super power approach you must have this force to dent any threat.

 

[Random Jan-e-mann]

a kiloton or sub kiloton posse no threat to big country like USA or Russia but an ICBM is game changer specially MIRV

 

[C130]

it takes hours for nuclear cruise missiles to hit their intended targets (assuming sub-sonic speed and 1,000KM+ range) while a ballistic missiles it's just minutes (less reaction time)

also in my opinion todays and the future ballistic missile systems aren't targeted at MAJOR nuclear powers but more at rouge nations like North Korea.


if the U.S thinks it can shoot down a full scale nuclear ICBM attack by Russia or China or vice versa Russia or China with their own anti ballistic missile systems them all parties are fools.


no system is PERFECT. missiles will get through along with their MIRV warheads.


a ballistic missile submarine can be a few hundred kilometers off your coastline and ready to unleash it's entire payload of nuclear tipped MIRV missiles into dozens of your cities.

you can't stop that and that isn't obsolete

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

A missile that can wipe a city , enough said

 

[Khafee]

A missile that can wipe a city , enough said

A BM and a CM, both can do that, so which one are you implying?

 

[3Kingdoms]

Firstly I'm not a professional like some others on this thread - this is my take from what I've read.

Scenario: You being a superpower what to protect your foreign interest abroad, or you may want to attack a foreign country in retaliation for something.
How do you fire an ICBM without triggering MAD?
An ICBM when launched would trigger a signal in-which a Defense Support System Satellite [DSP] would pick (Early Warning System) calculating its trajectory, a superpower would think the ICBM would be Nuke armed even if conventional. Boom MAD!

Hence cruise missiles would not trigger MAD. But they are slow and easy to intercept theoretically.
In 1998 Clinton ordered 60 tomahawk cruise missiles to fire on terrorist camps in Afghanistan, launched from ships in the Arabian Sea flew at 500mph and took two hours to reach their target. What can happen within 2hrs time?

So a missile that can attack anywhere in the world, fast as an ICBM which doesn't trigger MAD, is the ideal. Also if the missile is fast and can maneuver is near unbeatable because warning system won't be able to detect its trajectory.

 

[PARIKRAMA]

ICBM and CM are both two different strategies employed by an individual country as part of its deterrance to dissuade as well as an ability to overwhelm any opposition.

The issue of today's world and conflicts is that individually both these weapons comes with certain pros and cons.

To understand that lets see first ICBM
Pros

1. Longer range
2. Heavier warhead
3. Multiple warhead ability
4. Standard ballistic trajectory types
5. Ability to pierce through BMD via multiple decoys or warheads
6. Heavy destructive power
7. Lower CEP ranges

Cons

1. Huge bulky and very heavy system
2. High maintainence issues
3. Dedicated storage silos or rail wagons needing lines
4. Early detection possible
5. Costly
6. Very huge collateral damage
7. Smarter SAM systems can intercept
8. Laser weapons can in future may make them toothless
9. Limited maneuverability
10. MAD possibility

Now let's looks at CM
Pros

1. Short range to maximum medium range
2. Limited warhead
3. Low flying
4. Low observality
5. Terrain hugging
6. High precision
7. Lower cost
8. Limited and low collateral damage
9. Highly maneuverable
10. Less issues of storage and maintainence
11. Low cost highest deterrance provider
12. Small size enables jets to carry too as ALCMs besides sub launched or land launched versions

Cons

1. The limitation of fuel, guidance systems and warhead size limits the overall capability of a CM
2. Issues of mechanical failure moving from launch phase to cruise phase
3. CEP is good but lower than precision strike packages
4. TERCOM needs precise inputs in maps for which details must be available to feed into the missile for radar altimeter storage
5. Modern radars + AWACS+ specific systems with heat detection + MANPADS + guns are now able to counter CMs
6. In an event of a longer engagement CMs are much more costly than gravity bombs but cheaper than ballistic missiles

In today's world when human population has increased a lot, we see command centers or strategic establishments in a populated zones. In such a environment, using CM as a low collateral damage high precision systems is a wonderful option as tthewar economics would suggest this as a first strike package to obliterate such establishments.

ICBMs on the other hand it's usage increases the threshold of MAD and a humongous collateral damage which can be counter productive in a military campaign or conflict as it leads to mindless slaughter of masses.

In present scenario I feel ICBM are more of a political tool whereas a CM is a military tool.
ICBM is more about posturing but rarely used in real-time situations but are instruments of power projection, deterrance and technological achievement. CMs on the other hand are tactical solutions for any forces, a low cost credible deterrance option and importantly a low collateral damage option which provides a huge moral ability for the forces and the government who had done away the unnecessary slaughter if damage as seen in ICBM

Both ICBM and CM existence are needed but technically the era of ICBM is slowly waning away.

 

[Blue Marlin]

The purpose of this thread is to debate, that after the introduction of cruise missiles how effective is an ICBM?

Cruise Missiles can be launched from Aircrafts, Trucks, Ships & Subs, fly nap of the earth, and are extremely difficult to detect, given their RCS. On the -ve side, their range is limited in comparison to ICBM's i.e. 800km ~ 1500km+

ICBM's on the other hand, have exceptionally long range 5,000km+ but once launched can be detected by ground based radars, as well as satellites, making them easier to track and subsequently negate, directly or indirectly. Cruise missiles on the other hand, have a higher degree of stealth, and can literally arrive unannounced.

Please do not turn this into a "VS" thread.


@Horus @Icarus @Oscar @Icarus @waz

@Penguin @Taygibay @MilSpec @AUSTERLITZ @Bratva

@Paksanity @Viper0011. @Gufi @Blue Marlin @Akheilos

@Color_Less_Sky @DESERT FIGHTER @Desert Fox @DesertFox97 @AMDR

@Chinese-Dragon @Deino @WAJsal @TankMan @niaz

@The Deterrent @gambit @vostok @Basel @Indus Falcon

@Nihonjin1051 @Hu Songshan @cabatli_53 @Frogman

and all, looking forward to your comments.

Thank You

cruise missiles and icbm's are weapons for compleatly differant reasons. cruise missiles are for strategic strikes. weather it be convention or nuclear. icbm's are there to wipe cities of the map.
some icbms can be used to conventional strikes but that is seen as an act of war and most likely it wont be used on a non nuclear armed country so the responce would be nucear.
mind you icmb's are a deterrant

@Khafee it should be a vs thread. balistioc missiles vs cruise missiles
not pakistan vs india i have seen enough to last a life time

 

[Khafee]

cruise missiles and icbm's are weapons for compleatly differant reasons. cruise missiles are for strategic strikes. weather it be convention or nuclear. icbm's are there to wipe cities of the map.
some icbms can be used to conventional strikes but that is seen as an act of war and most likely it wont be used on a non nuclear armed country so the responce would be nucear.
mind you icmb's are a deterrant

@Khafee it should be a vs thread. balistioc missiles vs cruise missiles
not pakistan vs india i have seen enough to last a life time

Where did I say this is a Pakistan Vs India thread?

 

[Blue Marlin]

Where did I say this is a Pakistan Vs India thread?

i thought that was what your implying since it so common

 

[Khafee]

i thought that was what your implying since it so common

Do kindly vote in the poll, as well see my OP.

Thanks!

 

[Taygibay]

ICBM are mostly for nuclear and CM for the rest. The problem is seepage between the two.

A-
The temptation to use conventional warheads on ICBM is already implemented. US & French
subs have the design active or coming.
B-
As CM get better, which is faster than the treaties concerning their uses and sales, it is likely
that strategic and tactical uses will merge ( as was the case with the Neutron tipped weapons )
and that it will make them volatile to employ on many levels!

It's a pretty clear simple case of range shifting the advantage from shield to sword, IMHoO.
I gave my vote to cruise missiles because of relative ease of use.

Testing of ICBM against live defences are also rare and data is lacking to find AD Pk. ​

All the best to you and yours my friend, and for all, Tay.

 

[Sipahi]

A ballistic missile is a rocket which delivers a warhead by flying a ballistic trajectory, which is basically an arc between two points on the Earth's surface. A Cruise missile is basically an unmanned airplane which has an engine(usually a jet engine or sometimes a rocket motor) to fly like an airplane at low altitude to reach its target.

Ballistic Missile