This is a discussion on Air Launched ICBM? BAE's Sweet Design. within the Missiles & WMDs forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by My2Cents
The problem is not the weight but the length. To vertically launch a Minuteman III from ...
The problem is not the weight but the length. To vertically launch a Minuteman III from an aircraft the cargo compartment needs to be over 19 meters high, the C-5 Galaxy is slightly over 4 meters. Even the Super Guppy is less than 8 meters.
Whatever missile BAE is assuming, it has to be a lot smaller than an 18 meter Minuteman III.
Interesting concept by Dassault. Can be replicated on Su-34 or SH, maybe ?
Wonder what the payload is., can't be much.
That bridge linking the boosters and main body will be a design challenge. Has to be strong and stiff to do the job, but flexible to survive thermal expansion and buffeting before launch.
That bridge linking the boosters and main body will be a design challenge. Has to be strong and stiff to do the job, but flexible to survive thermal expansion and buffeting before launch.
80 kg for the 4 ton launcher, 150 kg for the 10 ton launcher, but the idea is workable. If it can be stretched to 300 kg using next generation of solid propellants, then it can definitely work as an ICBM. What advantage would an air launched ICBM will have are debatable.
the strategic implication of air launched ICBM are immense. they are
1. the platform will always be in the states own airspace
2. SAM system cant target these platform as they are outside there range
.3. they are immune to any first strike nuclear attcks
4.they can be on a constant patrol in the states own airspace thus avoiding detection as there is a chance of ssbn to be detected on patrol at high seas
5.they are in constant linked mode that allows them to perform a retaliatory strike immediately
the strategic implication of air launched ICBM are immense. they are
1. the platform will always be in the states own airspace
2. SAM system cant target these platform as they are outside there range
.3. they are immune to any first strike nuclear attcks
4.they can be on a constant patrol in the states own airspace thus avoiding detection as there is a chance of ssbn to be detected on patrol at high seas
5.they are in constant linked mode that allows them to perform a retaliatory strike immediately
1) no thats not the case, you're making an assumption that the launch platform will only launch from within sovereign space
2) incorrect, SAMs are also part of the broader COP where they are but a node in the sensor space, the SAM can and do get targetting feeds from other COP elements. That includes TACOP/SACOP
3) no they're not
4) incorrect, OTHR, SWR can and does track aircraft - including some generations of VLO in any space
5) how and where is the evidence
I'd suggest that you not make claims which are not accurate and present them as fact - especially when some of us in here deal in COP and track management capabilities.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
Well in big countries like the US or Russia all this can be achieved by truck or even train mounted ICBMs much easier.
And that's exactly what Russia is doing since decades. As long as you don't catch the trucks before they leave their base it is nearly impossible to find and desotry them all in the vast wilderness of Russia.
I see no advantage of plane based ICBMs compared to the systems which are already in service.
It is much easier and cheaper to keep a fleet of trucks running around than keeping the same number of planes in the air.
the strategic implication of air launched ICBM are immense. they are
1. the platform will always be in the states own airspace
2. SAM system cant target these platform as they are outside there range
.3. they are immune to any first strike nuclear attcks
4.they can be on a constant patrol in the states own airspace thus avoiding detection as there is a chance of ssbn to be detected on patrol at high seas
5.they are in constant linked mode that allows them to perform a retaliatory strike immediately
OTH radar systems in place were developed to find and track such targets. Because of the way the long wavelength used by these systems interact with the aircraft stealth technology does not appear applicable, as discussed elsewhere on this board. So far there does not seem to be any equivalent for finding SSBNs, except vastly expanding the SOSUS net.
Aircraft are high maintenance. Probably 1/3 to 1/2 of the fleet will be on the ground at any given time, and therefore vulnerable to a first strike. It is extremely unlikely that they can launch their missiles successfully when not airborne.
While current SAM systems do not have ranges over 600km, by the time this system could be fielded there will probably be robotic interceptors available with much greater ranges. It may also be possible to adapt existing cruise missiles designs for the job of shooting down such a large, slow, aircraft, especially if nuclear armed.
The radiologic implications of a crash, due to the huge quantities of missile propellant present, will in all likelihood severely restrict the area of operation for such aircraft in peacetime.
the strategic implication of air launched ICBM are immense. they are
1. the platform will always be in the states own airspace
2. SAM system cant target these platform as they are outside there range
.3. they are immune to any first strike nuclear attcks
4.they can be on a constant patrol in the states own airspace thus avoiding detection as there is a chance of ssbn to be detected on patrol at high seas
5.they are in constant linked mode that allows them to perform a retaliatory strike immediately
I would expect carefully hidden silos, rail/road transportable launchers, and submarines to have a longer life expectancy than air strips in the case of first strike. I see no advantages other than lower launch costs.
In order to achieve orbit, you need to gain a certain velocity to defy gravity pulling you back down. For low-earth orbit this value is about 7.8 to 8.0 km/s.
Shooting something to a couple hundred km altitude is easy. Making it gain the speed to achieve orbit is what separates a SLV from an ICBM.
Orbital Sciences has been operating what could easily be adapted to this role since 1996 with 40 successful launches out of 40. Slapping a fairing on an old wide body yields much more flexibility and capability.
Orbital Sciences has been operating what could easily be adapted to this role since 1996 with 40 successful launches out of 40. Slapping a fairing on an old wide body yields much more flexibility and capability.
