Is it possible to make a nuclear missle stealth?

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
The Russians already have the tech to make ICBM's virutally untouchable by American defence systems..

Meet the Topol SS-27 ICBM; www.youtube.com...

When I saw this I had to chuckle to myself...

Remind me so much of the ICBM that was launched in 1985 by Dan Aykroyd and Chevy Chase.... Spies Like Us (1985)



Class

I don't think any of us have to worry about a stealth ICBM anyway. It's far easier to brainwash a person into blowing themselves up with a suitcase nuke anyway...

Surely it is even easier to kill millions by contaminating water supplies with a deadly pathogen right???

That scenario always puts chills down my spine.

Anyway,

All the best people,

NeoN HaZe

Lol, nice of you to disgress away from the Topol, haze

Russia has technology far in advance of America, and has done for a long time. They just lack the funds to do anything with it.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Lol, nice of you to disgress away from the Topol, haze

Exactly how was my post a departure from the subject at hand?

I simply state that worrying about if a missile could be made stealth is irrelevant.

And I really would recommend watching spies like us... it's a hoot!!

All the best,

NeoN HaZe.

It wouldn't suprise me if some one has had a stealth nuke for the past 20-25years. These things would be quite scary.

Is it possible to shape a missle to be even stealthier? I know that we could put RAM on the outside, but can we put ECM on it?

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
The Russians also have developed supercavitation technology, which essentially creates a plasma layer around a torpedo/vessel, allowing it to travel through the water at unmatched speeds.

Just like a bullet. hitting a deer

the higher the speed the less it can turn and it's LOUD

Amazing,
25 posts and only one person answered the question. As kinglizard already said they have developed a stealth missile, the AGM-86B. I dont know why so many people jumped straight to the ICBM angle without considering all other types of missile.

I should like to point out that the difference between a missile and a nuclear missile is a few pounds of high grade fissile material. Therefore ANY low observable missile can be made a "special". It would be relatively easy to produce a nuclear version of JASSM for example. Therefore the answer is YES, it is possible to make a stealthy nuclear missile and indeed they already have and most probably will again in the future.

LEE.

From the article posted by king lizard:
The concept of a nuclear cruise missile now appears to be out of fashion.

Sheds new meaning on the term, fashionistas.

It would seem pathogens would be stealthier, and more accurate if some people have access to antidotes, re neonhaze's post. And the administration did recently announce that they would use biological warfare in an offensive capacity in defiance of Geneva conventions. Probably in response to their usage already by certain dictators. Given the Machiavellian nature of political intrigue, one wonders if it wasn't simply a test.

But can they deliver them with a stealth missile. One of the biggest problems of biological warfare is the dispersal of the pathogen. (Never mind the ethical issues.) Delivering it in a manner that permits a high enough count of the infective agent has been the biggest setback to biological warfare and the reason small pox with its highly contagious air borne qualities is seen as a useful virus with which to create hybrid pathogens.

No back to your regularly scheduled thread discussion...

I do not see why a stealth missile is even interesting at all.. what is the point of stealthing something if its going to blow itself up anyway? Why waste resources on that when you can develop a missile which doesn't need to be stealthed because its untouchable anyway.

The Topnol is only really vunerable when being launched..thats it. And considering it can be launched from movable platforms, this makes it virutally unstoppable. Stealth is not needed when you can simply penetrate the defence systems with this type of missile.

You would make the missle stealth because if you launch a couple thousand warheads at your enemy, you don't want them to know that you are firing at them. They would see the missles and fire back. Both countries would be destroyed.

Originally posted by thebozeian
Amazing,
25 posts and only one person answered the question. As kinglizard already said they have developed a stealth missile, the AGM-86B. I dont know why so many people jumped straight to the ICBM angle without considering all other types of missile.

I should like to point out that the difference between a missile and a nuclear missile is a few pounds of high grade fissile material. Therefore ANY low observable missile can be made a "special". It would be relatively easy to produce a nuclear version of JASSM for example. Therefore the answer is YES, it is possible to make a stealthy nuclear missile and indeed they already have and most probably will again in the future.

LEE.

Hey hey hey! I mentioned that it would be better to have stealth cruise missiles thankyouverymuch. That's TWO replies about them.

US already HAS stealthy cruise missile with nuclear warhead (for about 15 years). There are about 500 in USAF service.

AGM-129


The solution was to incorporate various "stealth" technologies into a new version of the basic ALCM system. These included changes to the body shaping to minimize radar reflections, moving the engine air intake to hide the compressor face (normally a major radar return) and even using a diffuser on the engine exhaust to minimize the infra-red signature. Another major change was the addition of a laser-based TERCOM terrain-following LIDAR to supplant the radar-based system of the original ALCM, to reduce or eliminate emissions.


Specifications:

* Weight: 1680 kg (3,500 lb) loaded
* Warhead: W80 nuclear - 5 to 150 kilotons
* Engine: Williams International 112 turbofan of 3.25 kN (732 lbf) thrust
* Cruise speed: 800 km/h (500 mph)
* Range: 3000 km (1865 miles)


[edit on 13-4-2007 by longbow]

Thank you, longbow, for finally mentioning the AGM-129 Advanced Cruise Missile (ACM). An earlier poster included a photo of the AGM-129A, mslabled as the older, less stealthy AGM-86B Air Launched Cruise Missile (ALCM).

For some reason, to comply with weapons treaties, the ACM is being retired. I'm not sure why they don't just retire an equal number of AGM-86B ALCMs. Why give up out stealthy nuclear-capable cruise missile?

An earlier attempt to develop a stealth cruise missile resulted in the AGM-137 Tri-Service Standoff Attack Missile (TSSAM). The project was a study in mismanagement. It went way behind schedule and way over budget, and was cancelled.

There is no practical way to make an ICBM stealthy and no good reason to do it. Cruise missiles are more applicable to low observables treatments.

Sure you could, but it isn't just radar you also have to worry about its IR signature, its hard to hide a huge hot flame.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA thats a joke right? You DO know about the ICBM shield being set up by the USA, right?

If an ICBM changes course in mid flight, it will miss. If it gets back on course, it will be taken down by the ICBM shield and THAAD AND the patriot missile.

All ICBMs travel at 3 miles/second. The American Minuteman III travels at 15,000 miles an hour or mach 23, or 4 miles/second. Its faster

www.fas.org...

3 miles/second isnt impossible to intercept. Unless its faster than an AESA radar (186,000 miles/second) it can be intercepted, and I dont care how "hardened" your missile is, it can't withstand a thousand pounds of metal slamming into it at hypersonic speeds.

On top of that, it doesnt matter if the missile can move in flight, because the USA ICBM shield intercepts the re-entry vehicles which are much easier to intercept.

And about supercavitation: If you think that supercavitation uses plasma you are SADLY mistaken. Supercavitation is done by specially shaping the nose of the torpedo to deflect water. There is no plasma do your research please.

And another thing: Those super duper russian torpedos cant steer torpedos get fired from ten miles away or so. Even at 200 miles an hour, thats 3.3 miles a minute and 3 minutes to get to the target and if it cant steer, to 37mph US ships will be long gone before it gets there. I dont know about you, but I'd take a US Mark 50 torpedo that goes 50+mph and can steer than an unguided underwater rocket.

And ANOTHER THING: the russians arent the only ones with supercavitation. The US is developing a mine clearing system with supercavitating BULLETS meant to clear mines, and it will probably eventually be deployed as an impenetrable underwater CIWS that will blast any torpedo away.

www.globalsecurity.org...

I agree that the Topol-M and its sub launched counterpart are the best ICBMS in the world, but they are not invincible, untouchable, or anything remotely close.

I agree that supercavitation is useful, just not in torpedos.

"The russians have always had the technology better than america"

LOL.

Your baseless claims REALLY REALLY piss me off. Do your research and post some links, back up your claims like me and act like an adult or take your nationalism somewhere else.

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
There is no practical way to make an ICBM stealthy and no good reason to do it. Cruise missiles are more applicable to low observables treatments.

So what you are saying is that it would be best just to give it a RAM coating? That would work to some point, but what about the hot flame?(that was mentioned by American Madman) How do you hide that from the IR radars? I don't think that the question that I asked was answered, would ECM help it to be diguised for a short time?

No, what he's saying is that you can't make an ICBM stealthy, even if you give it a RAM coating. If you want a stealthy nuclear weapon, use a nuclear cruise missile.

Alright, I can see why you can say that. Is it because of the strenuous heat it will go through? Can you clear that up for me?

[edit on 13/4/07 by galm 1]

Maybe its not possible to cloak it, but...

what about IR decoys? If the RV were to release packs of thermite or somesuch during reentry, that could overload or distract IRdars with a false reading.

Originally posted by shrunkensimon
Lol, nice of you to disgress away from the Topol, haze

Russia has technology far in advance of America, and has done for a long time. They just lack the funds to do anything with it.

Yes I would agree, but its easy to postulate great weapons systems and yet anopther to actually make them a working system. Russia has a history of grand weapons systems, but failing to deliver on many of them just like the US. As far as Russia spending money on a hard to hit missile good for them. However, as a practical matter the US ABM system would never be able to absorb a full attack from the Russians in it planned configuration. Majic Topol M missile or not.

The B-2's inital mission under the SIOP I recall was to hunt down mobile launchers and destroy them on Russian soil. I would not want to have that mission.

Mother Russia aside, back to the topic.

Stealthing a MIRV etc is not a trivial task. It still needs to be aerodynamic, it still needs to have signifigant heat resistance and strength. As Zaphod pointed out its IR signature would be huge and the huge X-Band radar has a good chace of picking it up anyway.

It seems far more economical to saturate the defences that spend money on a showey weapons that seems strictly for public consumption rather than any real strategic value