Can ICBMs be given stealth like planes?

[mr friendly guy]

Chardok is utterly wrong though; missiles are very vulnerable to ABM defenses. They always have been, we've been able to hit them on a routine basis for fifty years now. Any kind of investment would be much better invested in trying to work out a practical way of making the things maneuver. At the moment, that can't be done either.

If you are going to make them manouvrable, presumably thats useful for it to evade ABM? What about simply making the missiles vary their speed considerably at various times during the flight path (well actually only when it looks like being intercepted), the same way a bowler disguises the speed of his ball in the game of cricket. Has this ever been tried before? Or does this not work either?

[Skgoa]

Erm... 1) speed is height (is range) in (sub)orbital mechanics and 2) the whole point of that big ass rocket is to make the bombs go fast, any meaningful amount of other fuel/reasonably sized rocket motor will massively reduce that speed/range. If little manouvering thrusters aren't worth it due to weight, what do you think the effectivity of additional full sized engines would be?

[Simon_Jester]

Chardok is utterly wrong though; missiles are very vulnerable to ABM defenses. They always have been, we've been able to hit them on a routine basis for fifty years now. Any kind of investment would be much better invested in trying to work out a practical way of making the things maneuver. At the moment, that can't be done either.

If you are going to make them manouvrable, presumably thats useful for it to evade ABM? What about simply making the missiles vary their speed considerably at various times during the flight path (well actually only when it looks like being intercepted), the same way a bowler disguises the speed of his ball in the game of cricket. Has this ever been tried before? Or does this not work either?

Ahem.

Ballistic missile. Ballistic is a fancy word for "coasting." The missile's main engine burns out/runs out of fuel in the first few minutes; there is no way to have it speed up and slow down in mid-flight.

You could build a missile capable of doing that, I suppose, but it would be almost exactly the same engineering problem as building a missile that could sidestep incoming enemy ABM fire.

[mr friendly guy]

To be fair to myself, I was thinking in terms of boosters, the same way we launch space shuttles. The boosters come off after supplying the extra power and the lessen mass also helps speeds things up. It was most probably a silly idea anyway.

[Sea Skimmer]

For all the trouble required to make the RV detect and evade incoming ABM interceptors, it might be easier and no less expensive to just design and launch dedicated ‘escort’ missiles which include sensors and a couple kill vehicle interceptors themselves, which attack the rising ABM interceptors in turn. This wouldn’t work against terminal ABM, but it ought to have a chance of defending the warhead buses until they drop the RVs.

Course at that point one might question why not place the sensors and RV defending interceptor in orbit so they can easily cover the entire endoatmospheric ICBM flight path, and use them to destroy enemy ABM missiles and counter attacking enemy ballistic missiles and ASAT missiles at the same time.

[someone_else]

and then the skies (metaphorically) are filled with counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-ICBM.

Better than stealthing the ICBM, but can get out of hand fast.

[PeZook]

and then the skies (metaphorically) are filled with counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-counter-ICBM.

Better than stealthing the ICBM, but can get out of hand fast.

How so? It will just become a killsat/murdermissile race, much like air defence vs. airplane race. Air defecences can be countered by aircraft and vice versa, you don't need a specialized counter-counterfighter system: you just build a new SAM that can now kill SAM supression planes from outside the range of their own weapons, then the enemy builds their own, etc.

[Stuart]

What about simply making the missiles vary their speed considerably at various times during the flight path (well actually only when it looks like being intercepted), the same way a bowler disguises the speed of his ball in the game of cricket. Has this ever been tried before? Or does this not work either?

Simple ballistics unfortunately. By varying the speed, one also varies the range. Think of an ICBM as a simple bullet; how fast it goes determines how far it goes. Vary the speed and the difference results in range errors (it will also result in deflection errors as well but that's a minor detail compared to the range error. So, the missile will greatly overshoot its target if it accelerates and greatly undershoot its target if it slows down. That's neglecting the whole weight problem of course.

ICBMs as we know them today are very easy to hit because they come in on a fixed course that is immutable. In fact, it's even easier than one might think because there are only a limited number of trajectories that take us from (the most likely launch points) to (the most likely targets). That limited choice of trajectories all go through a relatively limited patch of sky. So, if we cover that patch, we're half way home.

That's why SLBMs are more difficult to counter than ICBMs

[Sky Captain]

How would a a low flying stealthed cruise missile do against anti missile and anti aircraft defences? It would have to be subsonic to maintain stealth so it would take long to reach target, but suppose you launch it from submarine located few hundred km from enemy coast to take care of the low speed problem. If target is closer than 1000 km then flight time wouldn't be much longer than ICBM launched from other side of the world. How detectable such cruise missile would be if it flies just few m above water (if weather is calm)

[K. A. Pital]

How would a a low flying stealthed cruise missile do against anti missile and anti aircraft defences? It would have to be subsonic to maintain stealth so it would take long to reach target, but suppose you launch it from submarine located few hundred km from enemy coast to take care of the low speed problem. If target is closer than 1000 km then flight time wouldn't be much longer than ICBM launched from other side of the world. How detectable such cruise missile would be if it flies just few m above water (if weather is calm)

It would be poorly detectable due to radar horizon, ground clutter and other issues. OTC and large surface-wave (I hope I'm right), multistatic coastal control radars could help you with early detection and warning of such a missile, but actually downing the missile would be a pain in the ass.

[Kyler]

I think Stuart has covered the reasons why ICBM's can not have stealth.

There is currently a semi-stealthy way to deploy an ICBM MIRV bus. The USAF is still currently testing Boeing's X-37 autonomous space plane.
The prototype was launched several months ago, and far as anyone knows it is still in orbit. The X-37 has a large fuel capacity allowing it to change orbit on a regular basis on missions possibly up to 9 months. Amateur sky watchers have been trying to watch the craft during these past few months, and on few occasions found it.

The X-37 has a large enough storage capacity to bring satellites into orbit. Though Russia & China have been concerned that it also could be used to disable or steal satellites. Also they have been concern with X-37 being used to carry a MIRV bus into orbit. The USAF & the DoD are being very tight lipped about the X-37's true purpose. This probably effective PR counter punch to China's testing of a few anti-satellite weapons a few years ago.

The X-37 would be an excellent alert weapon system or first strike platform. Like SAC's B-52s orbiting outside Russian during the Cold War, have X-37's orbiting in space waiting for a possible strike.

[someone_else]

How so? It will just become a killsat/murdermissile race, much like air defence vs. airplane race.

Wait a minute, you mean that it's better to have all defence missiles targeted at enemy ICBM?
Smart.
Ok, I clearly said bullshit.