Kaktus29 Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 whats the range in today's modern versions.. tomahawk is kinda old when it comes to what range it offers and obviously since cruise missiles get bigger ranges they become more strategic weapons than tactical.. i've read some articles about new gen Russian cruise missiles with a range of 6000 km, or even 10.000 km.. which would put them on par with ICBMs.. especially dangerous they are since they can overwhelm the defenses much faster and response time diminishes much more for the defender.. US has started voicing opposition to new Russian cruise missiles which only means they in fact do provide a bigger range and create real response issues for the other side.. http://en.ria.ru/world/20140130/187045403/US-Alleges-Russian-Missile-Treaty-Violation--Report.html soon, it would seem Bombers might become obsolete.. one might bombard another country safely from its own soil.. so whats the new thing that makes cruise missile with such a range.. do they fly super high super fast, or have better engines, better fuel.. i mean 2000 km is one thing but 6K, 10K? ..wow..
RIPTIDE Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 whats the range in today's modern versions.. tomahawk is kinda old when it comes to what range it offers and obviously since cruise missiles get bigger ranges they become more strategic weapons than tactical.. i've read some articles about new gen Russian cruise missiles with a range of 6000 km, or even 10.000 km.. which would put them on par with ICBMs.. especially dangerous they are since they can overwhelm the defenses much faster and response time diminishes much more for the defender.. US has started voicing opposition to new Russian cruise missiles which only means they in fact do provide a bigger range and create real response issues for the other side.. http://en.ria.ru/world/20140130/187045403/US-Alleges-Russian-Missile-Treaty-Violation--Report.html soon, it would seem Bombers might become obsolete.. one might bombard another country safely from its own soil.. so whats the new thing that makes cruise missile with such a range.. do they fly super high super fast, or have better engines, better fuel.. i mean 2000 km is one thing but 6K, 10K? ..wow.. A few things... Intermediate range cruise missiles are not a new thing. What made them conform to the Intermediate Treaty was the fact that they were exclusively air launched. For example the Kh-55/555/101. Over 5k of course they are considered Long Range missiles. What can cause a bit of agitation however is longer range missiles being tested or used ALSO as an Intermediate Missile. Bombers will not be obsolete. Have you considered the cost of making these missiles? I'm going to guess that missile cost follows some sort of exponential type rule in proportion to range and payload. Instead of making very expensive longer range missiles, make cheaper Intermediate range missiles and hang them inside bomber bays. Cheaper and still effective. :) [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Kaktus29 Posted February 1, 2014 Author Posted February 1, 2014 @riptide.. yes, but sending bombers means more cost for developing bombers, using escort, or having stealth bombers-even more money, etc.. if one runs a huge serial run of making cruise missiles the price drops with each missile produced while its hard to really justify this economy of scale with bombers which usually not more than 20-60 are needed for major war.. true the intermediary treats is about air launched weapons and is forbidding land-launch..but still range plays a role.. if land launched its much more stealthy than by air that powerful radar EW can see the plane take off ..or satellite pictures can notice the bombers refueling and arming at air base etc.. giving a warning .. but land launched cruise missiles hiding in the woods and in other places are much harder to notice.. and if range is big enough have the potency to deliver a decapitating first strike.. i do find it interesting US accept international treaties on ad hoc basis) lol.. ABM treaty was shredded by Bush on mere whim.. US said yes, there was a treaty and now there is none.. but Russia is supposed to remain in the dark ages so US ABM shield will not be wasted for nothing if nuke exchange starts..
Scrim Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 soon, it would seem Bombers might become obsolete.. one might bombard another country safely from its own soil.. Air to air missiles, now cannons on fighters are obsolete. Drones, now manned flights are obsolete. Etc...
GGTharos Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 There's nothing ad-hoc about it. All countries disregard treaties when they are no longer useful. ABM treaty has become useless since it's not just Russia that owns M/IRBMs now, AND ABMs have become successful. Russia has fielded ABM capabilities for ever as well. You know what else isn't surprising or ad-hoc? Protesting treaty violations. And as far as long range cruise missiles go, given the stuff the US is developing, the complaint is even funnier - about as funny as Russia complaining about ABMs. ti do find it interesting US accept international treaties on ad hoc basis) lol.. ABM treaty was shredded by Bush on mere whim.. US said yes, there was a treaty and now there is none.. but Russia is supposed to remain in the dark ages so US ABM shield will not be wasted for nothing if nuke exchange starts.. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda
Invader ZIM Posted February 1, 2014 Posted February 1, 2014 I'm sort of fond of an army of stealth cruise missiles that can think for themselves to evade threats and jam point defense systems that have a range of over 500 nautical miles. They're real, test firings from Ship containers here, basically modified JASSM ER's: Video of their threat evasion and targeting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LvHlW1h_0XQ
RIPTIDE Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 @riptide.. yes, but sending bombers means more cost for developing bombers, using escort, or having stealth bombers-even more money, etc.. if one runs a huge serial run of making cruise missiles the price drops with each missile produced while its hard to really justify this economy of scale with bombers which usually not more than 20-60 are needed for major war.. No. In Gulf War 1 for example there was approximately 250,000 explosive devices shot/dropped at/on Iraq and Kuwait from Aircraft or Cruise Missiles. And that was by no means a major conflict in the grand scheme of things. Are you suggesting replacing all those bombs with cruise missiles? What about the enormous stockpiles required for a Major v Major conflict? At ~1,000,000 a Missile that would be 250 billion, before a foot set on the desert. :D. Nope... Iron bombs + Aircraft will be the heavy lifters for the foreseeable future in Conventional elements of the Major-Major conflicts to come. And a major chunk of the Major-Minor conflicts, where it's still affordable to fire advance weapons to minimize risk and bad news for the CNN/Fox viewing masses. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
Invader ZIM Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 (edited) double tap Edited February 2, 2014 by Invader ZIM double tap
Invader ZIM Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 Oh, the news agencies will always find something to watch when a war's on. These are Tomahawk's hitting a munitions dump in Kirkuk Iraq, warning for language as FO team does BDA on the target. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJykWzo_XDE&list=FLUbMa9kEYoLP3_Zlc2nzVPA&index=154 It's worth the cost if a few million dollar cruise missiles take out a large munitions dump for example, same with a few cruise missiles taking out a naval warship. But like Riptide said, it's still mostly going to be cheaper Bomber + GPS, LGB, or dumb bombs that do a lot of the work. Long range cruise missiles aren't really anything new, like this 1948 Navaho: Design studies showed the promise of still greater ranges and by 1950 the vehicle had evolved from a 500-mile (800 km) ground launched winged V-2, to a 1,000-mile (1,600 km) range ramjet powered winged V-2, to a 1,500-mile (2,400 km) air-launched, ramjet-powered, winged V-2 (actually designated XSSM-A-2), to finally a 3,000-mile (4,800 km) plus rocket boosted ramjet powered cruise missile. The design evolution finally ended in July 1950 They advanced pretty far considering the 1950 timeframe.
JB3DG Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 From what I can gather, the second vid is actually an Iraqi attack on a US ammo dump.
Invader ZIM Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 (edited) I think you might be right MilvisJB, the audio seems confusing to me when I was trying to listen to those guys. At first they claim they had prior warning about this stuff coming in, then I hear mention of a bomb drop, then there's joking about re calling the Kirkuk fire dept, and the guy filming mentioning "Do we really have that many munitions?". I'd be curious to know more about this event, the title they gave the video seems misleading. Edited February 2, 2014 by Invader ZIM
Scrim Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 Seems very straight forward to me. The fact that they're putting down maybe 3 Tomahawks on an ammo dump is certainly enough to ask that rhetorical question. Then there's some things like that they're laughing. It's not WW2, ammo dumps these days are kept inside major bases, so they'd hardly be laughing if that was a Coalition ammo dump going up.
Invader ZIM Posted February 2, 2014 Posted February 2, 2014 You have a point Scrim, they were laughing a bit, just watching the fireworks so to speak. Guess it was a misinformed post on the Youtube channel that called up the question of who's ammunition was actually going up. It certainly sounds impressive when you turn the speakers up.
Recommended Posts