ICBM's - Obsolete?

[Kompromat]

ICBM's are a weapon of deterrent while Ballistic and Cruise Missile systems are still applicable in the battlefield. Personally i would want to have an ICBM arsenal in Pakistan to maintain a full spectrum deterrence, they are the ultimate guarantors of national sovereignty and there's no other way around it.

 

[Pangu]

ICBMs are like a heavy, slow, giant boxer who telegraphs his punches, but KO you if it lands. Cruise missiles are bantam weight who leads you with multiple jabs before sneaking in good, strong straight for good measure.

 

[Dash]

ICBM's are a weapon of deterrent while Ballistic and Cruise Missile systems are still applicable in the battlefield

Which part of ICBM is "not" ballistic and how ballistic missiles and cruise missiles are "battlefield" weapon?

 

[Random Jan-e-mann]

Which part of ICBM is "not" ballistic and how ballistic missiles and cruise missiles are "battlefield" weapon?

He wanted to say medium and short ballistic missile.

 

[Dash]

He wanted to say medium and short ballistic missile.

MRBM and SRBM are not battlefield weapons. Please read upon their range and technical spcifications to know how they work and whats their purpose.

 

[Brahmaputra Mail]

I would go for SLBMs instead of ICBMs.

 

[Kompromat]

I think the OP was implying the difference between MRBMs and ICBMs.

Which part of ICBM is "not" ballistic and how ballistic missiles and cruise missiles are "battlefield" weapon?

 

[Maarkhoor]

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

Cruise missiles also possibly can be ICBM category and range but at long ranges can be hunt down by any modern fighters. ICBM with MIRV capability is big advantage against offensive enemy and ABM.

 

[Dash]

@Khafee

Cruise missile and ICBM have different purpose in ORBAT. Cruise missile is for high value target where ICBM is more a detterent and taking out larger chunk of areas.

Regarding the detection part of a cruise missile, they can be tracked by over the horizon radars like AEWACS.

 

[500]

MX ICBM

97 ton weight (not mobile)
14,000 km range(does not need a platform)
10x475 kt warhead
~30 min flight time
20+ Mach speed (virtually impossible to shoot down)
elevated trajectory (easy to detect with powerful radars)

Tomahawk CM

1.6 tons weight (mobile)
2,500 km range (needs a platform to bring closer)
150 kt warhead
~ 3 hr flight time
0.8 Mach speed (relatively easy to shoot down)
skimming trajectory (need AWACS in the air to detect)

 

[Penguin]

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

ABM systems are neither cheap, not simple. Strategic deterrance still relies heavily on them, and with good reason: hard to defend against.

 

[Kyusuibu Honbu]

The thread is actually the other way around.

Introduction of ICBMs made usage of long range cruise missiles for nuclear deterrence such as SM-62 Snark obsolete

SM-62 Snark - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ICBMs and cruise missile missiles are not comparable.

while ICBMs are robust and can achieve terminal velocities of upto mach 24, they lack precision, which cruise missile do.

ICBMs are suited for nuclear strike, cruise missiles are suited for conventional strikes.

 

[Shotgunner51]

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

Perhaps the two are for quite different applications, playing different roles.

I would say ICBM is pivotal in strategic deterrence for it's ability to deliver heavy or multiple thermonuclear payloads, over inter-continental ranges, in shortest possible time. Range, time, are critical considerations even in a second-strike scenario. ICBM can be further enhanced with new techs like HGV to improve effectiveness in penetrating BMD, while cruise missile effectiveness could be vulnerable to anti-stealth techs (or any conventional anti-air techs). Like cruise missiles, launch platforms of ICBM can be land mobile or undersea to increase survivability, so this might not be an issue.

 

[Khafee]

@gambit @HRK Would appreciate your comments on the OP.

Thanks