What a Cruise Missile can do?

[graphican]

Hello Everybody,

with reference to one of the posts over here, I want senior members to help us understand what is the destruction radius of a cruise or conventional missile in case launched over an enemy airbase/installation? I remember America had attacked Bin Ladin with Cruise Missiles and some 10+ missiles were fired at his expected hideout. Those 10+ missiles had destroyed the hideout and some 8 people were reported dead in that attack. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

Considering the number of missiles used and the damage caused by them, it appears that until unless cruise or conventional missile is tipped with small sized nuclear bomb, it would not cause considerable damage to the enemy. Even the SY-400 system of China will be killing people on ground, damage vehicles but would not destroy the enemy's installation/airbase completely.

My point is if in response to Indian Aggression we attack them back with Babur CM, Ghouri or Shaheen, it will not incapacitate enemy until unless nuclear bombs are used against them.

Keeping the flamers out, I only want a sensible, realistic and informative response. Thanks.

 

[gogbot]

If i remember correctly Cruise Missiles were first created to take down enemy ships.

In 1916, Lawrence Sperry patented and built an "aerial torpedo", a small biplane carrying a TNT charge, a Sperry autopilot and a barometric altitude control.

The damage they do is proportional to the size of the warhead they carry and the nature of the intended target.

The example you used is a very bad one.

depending on warhead , and target, Missiles can destroy ships, warehouse sized buildings and even Cripple enemy forces by argeting sensitive sites such as Radar systems and airfields.

One cannot give you a specific destructive potential due to varying warhead size. But Cruise Missiles are highly accurate and Destructive making them a favorite for Pin-point strikes.

The most common mission for cruise missiles is to attack relatively high value targets such as ships, command bunkers, bridges and dams[. Modern guidance system permit precise attacks.

Commanders would love to use Cruise Missiles as much as possible, If not for one small problem

Currently cruise missiles are among the most expensive of single-use weapons, up to several million dollars apiece. One consequence of this is that its users face difficult choices in targeting, to avoid expending the missiles on targets of low value. For instance during Operation Enduring Freedom the United States attacked targets of very low monetary value with cruise missiles, which led many to question the efficiency of the weapon. However, proponents of the cruise missile counter that the same argument applies to other types of UAVs: they are cheaper than human pilots when total training and infrastructure costs are taken into account, not to mention the risk of loss of personnel.

 

[Windjammer]

Also keep in mind that even in conventional form the Cruise missiles adopt various category of war heads. The well documented weapons usually slam into a target like any AGM, but others also deploy air burst weapons, in such case when a cruise missile reaches over it's designated target say at a height of 20 Feet, it's war head explodes spraying the area with bomblets or small explosives hence effecting a bigger area.

 

[Luftwaffe]

I do not remember where i read it but it read the idea of tri-missile because i do not know the exact word for it...something like a large cruise missile as soon closing on its target splits detaches and other 2 smaller cruise missiles head to their designated targets..In theory it is possible in reality i do not doubt it either..have your say would this technology exists? I' researching on it..

 

[Sinnerman108]

A better analogy may be to think of cruise missile as poor man's air force.
A cruise missile flies almost like an air craft considering the control surfaces
and the maneuvers it can make.

And a cruise missile can carry a multitude of warheads from conventional
to hard tipped to chemical etc.

As far as my knowledge goes, even a small nuclear device is enough to disable
a large military base.

It depends on the kind of damage one wants to make and the kind of target one wants to take out.

Luftwaffe is correct that multiple warheads can be encased and made to split,
however this involves technology to miniaturize the warhead; at present we are getting there ....

The only con for cruise missile is the unit cost which is close to a million USD.
This cost can be brought down with large scale production, but then again
it would cause a change in defense doctorine all together.

Hope that suffice

 

[brahmastra]

destruction purely depends on the warhead.

but, lets see how a cruise missile works?

http://www.howeverythingworks.org/journal/Article1.3.pdf

 

[Awesome]

The primary factor of CMs is not its warhead but its accuracy. Either the CMs perform course correction using their wings or can be controlled remotely to hit a particular target accurately.

With skilled operators using Baburs we can take out India's AF advantage by accurately destroying their hangars and runways, all we need to do is make contact with the target.

Hence I think one of Pakistan's primary concerns should be to have a massive stockpile of Cruise Missiles.

 

[gambit]

Hello Everybody,

with reference to one of the posts over here, I want senior members to help us understand what is the destruction radius of a cruise or conventional missile in case launched over an enemy airbase/installation? I remember America had attacked Bin Ladin with Cruise Missiles and some 10+ missiles were fired at his expected hideout. Those 10+ missiles had destroyed the hideout and some 8 people were reported dead in that attack. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

Considering the number of missiles used and the damage caused by them, it appears that until unless cruise or conventional missile is tipped with small sized nuclear bomb, it would not cause considerable damage to the enemy. Even the SY-400 system of China will be killing people on ground, damage vehicles but would not destroy the enemy's installation/airbase completely.

It is not the level of damage but what kind of damage. For example...Back in Desert Storm, the US took out Iraqi radar stations, not by destroying the entire post but only what were necessary to create EM transmissions. If that mean antennas and generators, take them out.

 

[Awesome]

It is not the level of damage but what kind of damage. For example...Back in Desert Storm, the US took out Iraqi radar stations, not by destroying the entire post but only what were necessary to create EM transmissions. If that mean antennas and generators, take them out.

Gambit, I've been meaning to ask, why is there talk of CEP when talking about CMs? One would think with course corrections and wings you can pretty much hit the mark.

 

[xuxu1457]

http://player.youku.com/player.php/sid/XMTQwMjI3OTA4/v.swf

 

[graphican]

The only con for cruise missile is the unit cost which is close to a million USD.

In my understanding, the most expensive part of cruise missile would be its software and central processing unit that controls the movement of missile over terrains. Other two parts of the missile, i.e. motor and detonator would be still the same as usual ballistic missile. So once this software and CPU is developed, it could be replicated inexpensively. So may be when USA says unit cost of missile is 1 million dollars, it would be because huge software cost that it spent initially and serial production of the missile would not be as huge as anticipated.

 

[Sinnerman108]

In my understanding, the most expensive part of cruise missile would be its software and central processing unit that controls the movement of missile over terrains. Other two parts of the missile, i.e. motor and detonator would be still the same as usual ballistic missile. So once this software and CPU is developed, it could be replicated inexpensively. So may be when USA says unit cost of missile is 1 million dollars, it would be because huge software cost that it spent initially and serial production of the missile would not be as huge as anticipated.

yes, you are spot on.
the US defense industry (and all the rest) milks the congress for money in ways that you and I can not even dream about. So it is safe to assume that US Cruise missile would be over cost.

The rest of the missile is not like a ballistic missile, it is very different in launch, flight, trajectory, its a different beast in its own right.

The cost of software, processor the FPGA development etc are initial,
however please do factor the cost of maintenance and upgrade.
A software engineer my self, I can tell you that these are nasty
costs.

Also a point to be noted here that the US or europe have a large economy which
uses / produces parts and components of the same technology in one way or other.

In our case, a full assembly project for CM would cost too much ...

The cost of hardware is smaller but not negligible.
The Navigation unit, be it GPS / Image etc constitutes of sensors which Pakistan would import
Cost of flight unit, including the servo motors, the cost of Alloys
and the cost of rocket motor + the ENGINE !

Cost of maintenance of the whole unit, and keeping it in operating conditions.

The costs mentioned in the second half go down as production orders go up.

As I said, a large stock of CM will be more cost effective, however
that requires a revision in war doctorine.

 

[mean_bird]

Hello Everybody,

with reference to one of the posts over here, I want senior members to help us understand what is the destruction radius of a cruise or conventional missile in case launched over an enemy airbase/installation? I remember America had attacked Bin Ladin with Cruise Missiles and some 10+ missiles were fired at his expected hideout. Those 10+ missiles had destroyed the hideout and some 8 people were reported dead in that attack. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

Considering the number of missiles used and the damage caused by them, it appears that until unless cruise or conventional missile is tipped with small sized nuclear bomb, it would not cause considerable damage to the enemy. Even the SY-400 system of China will be killing people on ground, damage vehicles but would not destroy the enemy's installation/airbase completely.

My point is if in response to Indian Aggression we attack them back with Babur CM, Ghouri or Shaheen, it will not incapacitate enemy until unless nuclear bombs are used against them.

Keeping the flamers out, I only want a sensible, realistic and informative response. Thanks.

Well lets start from what a cruise missile is. A cruise missile is something like an airplane (ok, not so alike but still) that can fly low, fast and hit with high degree of accuracy. The greatest advantage is that terrain following cruise missiles, like babur, can fly quite low (around 50m) and hence remain largely undetected from ground based radars (like the indian Green Pine radars). It can follow the terrain, like climb up to cross a hill and go down into a valley, etc because it has small wings to maneuver. It can even cross the target, turn around and hit back.

Next comes the question what they are or can be used for. As you rightly pointed out, CM (cruise missiles) are more like having the ability to carry a warhead. So the target and its destruction is based on the type of warhead used. Those targets can be deadly such as nuclear, biological, chemical ones or more conventional ones.

If non-conventional ones are used, then the destruction cycle and targets are obvious--depending on the size of the device used and objectives. Could be anything from destroying a whole city (depending on how much load the missile can carry) to more tactical, small scale weapons intended to limit the fallout for destroying smaller targets.

In case of Afghanistan, they (US) had simply a huge supply of CMs, lots of money and satellite targets so they used them to hit individual hideouts. In an Indo-pak scenario, that is pretty much unlikely as the whole context will be quite different. So in case of indo-pak, cruise missiles can be used to destroy tactical positions such as power generation houses, bridges, weapons and ammunition depots, fixed ground based radars, command and control structures, communication networks, etc. Hence the warheads do not have to be non-conventional.

And as others have said, the destruction is purely based on the warhead and it doesnt have to be brutal but just achieve its objectives. You do not have to completely destroy an airbase as it bring to ground, but if you can make it nonoperational for a brief period of time, your other forces can take advantage of that.

Hope that clears it a bit.

 

[pak-yes]

But what about CM interception.

I mean INDIANS have Phalcons and they can easily detect CM.And Once a CM is detected it is very easy to destroy.Correct me if i am wrong.

 

[Red Dwarf]

Some doubts. For example, target is fixed. Now
1) From where will you get the information on how you can reach the target ?.(Path)

2) When will you load the information on to the CM and how much time will it take for that process ?. And what kind of information that would be ?.

3) What will the CM do when the data it got does not coincide with the actual data ?. (Eg: Enemy made some changes in the path or target). Is there any self destruct mechanism on such occasions ?.

4) Where did the CM process the information. Is this on the missile itself or through a communication network with the control center ?.