Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Air Defense Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: The Real Missile Threat - Cruise not Ballistic?
SLAMRAAM    4/7/2004 7:40:41 AM
"Even before the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush took office it was clear that a considerable portion of their national security agenda would emphasize the missile threat, and consequently the need for a missile defense system. But lost in all the political debate has been a key question: what kind of missile? Ever since President Ronald Reagan unveiled his Strategic Defense Initiative in 1983, the assumption has always been that the United States will be threatened by ballistic missiles. But that threat is overstated. When it comes to likely dangers, it should be remembered that bad things could come in small packages; namely cruise missiles. The latest evidence is a recent RAND study that warns that the U.S. Army should invest more money in developing better defenses against cruise missiles, which will pose a greater threat than ballistic missiles. [ ]" Source: Center for defense information 2002 "Smaller nations" can't afford both, so should we go for CMD or BMD?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
macawman    RE:The Real Missile Threat - Cruise not Ballistic?   4/8/2004 10:33:20 PM
Cruise missles are the more likely tactical threat to the Army and Navy. They would be cheaper to build, smaller, and likely more of them, thus cruise missiles are easier to hide (can be launched from under shelter) or they could just overwhelm our 'All Seeing Eyes' satellites and other warning systems.. Mass vs Deception.
 
Quote    Reply

anton    RE:The Real Missile Threat - Cruise not Ballistic?   4/15/2004 7:27:21 AM
I agree. It's time for the western world to wake up to the new threats posed by unmanned vehicles and cruise missiles. The MTCR and other nonproliferation initiatives are unable to prevent transfer of such systems, technology and know-how to suspect nations and organisations. The only insurance we have is to make sure we can defend our selves against attacks with such weapons. Refer to the late gulf war; of the 5 Seersuckers (a derivate of the Russian Styx anti shipping cruise missile) launched against allied forces - none were either detected nor engaged. And this was purely a glimps of what you may expect in future conflicts. Stay alive guys!
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:The Real Missile Threat - Cruise not Ballistic?   4/15/2004 8:27:10 AM
There are limitations to cruise missiles - especially from a US point of view: 1. They have limited range. 2. They can be brought down in flight like every other aircraft.
 
Quote    Reply

anton    RE:The Real Missile Threat - Cruise not Ballistic?   4/15/2004 10:15:08 AM
I see your point, and I agree. But.. 1.Isn?t ?range? a relative term? The Seersuckers in the recent war were only capable of flying 70-80 km. Nevertheless they hit pretty close to Camp Doha. Rather, in my opinion it was the fact that the threat was Seersuckers, which are anti-shipping cruise missiles with a pretty low accuracy when used in a land attack role, that kept our guys safe. 2.Yes, cruise missiles can be brought down like any aircraft. However, enemy air threats like low flying cruise missiles, appearing like any other aircraft, will make things more difficult for deployed air and missile defence forces due to the challenge of distinguishing between friend and foe. If the cruise missiles are detected at all, that is, flying at a few feet above the ground or sea.
 
Quote    Reply

Wurstfinger    RE:The Real Missile Threat - Cruise not Ballistic?   5/4/2004 7:14:03 PM
absolutely true, every radar, even the most spohisticated in planes and on ground have some dificulty detecting a small, fast and low flying objectm especially when covered by natural obstacles (valleys, hills etc.). if a considerable number of cruise missiles are launched, no known air defence system will be able to destroy all of them, it is just pretty much impossible, u would have to have A LOT of guys with stinger and AAA, systems like patriot are not the right choice against this threat. if cruise missiles become more and more supersonically in the future, the threat will be even bigger.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:The Real Missile Threat - Cruise not Ballistic?   5/5/2004 5:48:24 AM
Look: The way to deal with such low-fliers is to have visual observation: To any american that is stoneage methods; but they work. With a bit of organisation, a couple of squadrons of jet-trainers should be able to down them. If You use manpads: move the teams on the basis of your warning picture (low-level).
 
Quote    Reply

Perfection Incarnate    RE:The Real Missile Threat - Cruise not Ballistic?   5/5/2004 10:01:51 AM
Ballistic missile are more of a threat strategically....if you look at the grand scheme of things, a cruise missile hitting an army camp isn't comparable to an atomic ICBM striking Hawaii....we need to protect against both...we don't have to choose just one.....of what? 400 billion dollars in the defense budget, spending 10 billion over several years to negate the rogue state ICBM threat is well worth it...1% of defense funding to end all potential of NK blackmail/extortion....MAD doesn't work with psychotic people like Mr. Il. (the dude puts his hair up like that because he's insecure about his height or lacktherof for gods sake...someone crazy enough to think that makes him look better is crazy enough to try some ****ed up **** with the US.... my 2 cents
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    RE:Perfection Incarnate    5/5/2004 10:15:14 AM
I wouldn't have mentioned it, but for Your handle: I think the proper name is Mr. Kim, not Il.
 
Quote    Reply

SLAMRAAM    RE:The Real Missile Threat - Cruise not Ballistic?   6/30/2004 11:37:24 AM
CM update...... Russia test-launches missiles 2004-06-30 In addition to testing an SS-N-23 SLBM, Russia today also launched an unidentified strategic cruise missile from a Tu-95MS strategic bomber. ITAR-TASS reports that the missile successfully hit its target at the test range in Novaya Zemlya, located in the Arctic circle. While the missile was not identified, the Tu-95MS bomber has in the past carried the Kh-55 nuclear capable cruise missile, a new variant of which might have been the subject for testing. North Korea may have test-fired missile 2004-06-26 Unnamed sources were quoted on Saturday as saying that news of the test-firing was conveyed to Japan's Defence Ministry by the U.S. Defense Department, but that the Japanese government was unable to confirm the launch. The missile, which the United States suggested may be a version of the Chinese Silkworm anti-ship missile, or a ballistic missile smaller in size than the short-range Scud missile, was not thought to have posed any threat to Japan's security.
 
Quote    Reply

WinsettZ    RE:The Real Missile Threat - Cruise not Ballistic?   6/30/2004 11:45:16 AM
Some cruise missiles can mount nukes. Even lowly Scuds, might be downable but in OIF 2, even with air defenses in place, some made it to target. So the russian threat of low-flying, high speed (anti-shipping) cruise missiles is relatively unknown in these parts.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics