Talk:Cruise missile: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Sandy Harris No edit summary |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
Not sure how it fits in here, but Slashdot have a link to NYT story on a shipping container with four cruise missiles inside. Lift off the roof & launch. | Not sure how it fits in here, but Slashdot have a link to NYT story on a shipping container with four cruise missiles inside. Lift off the roof & launch. | ||
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/04/26/world/international-us-russia-weapon.html?_r=1 [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 11:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC) | http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/04/26/world/international-us-russia-weapon.html?_r=1 [[User:Sandy Harris|Sandy Harris]] 11:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC) | ||
:Thanks. It might be a good starting point for realities, strengths and limitations of cruise missiles. Novator, incidentally, is a respected design bureau, but to air-to-air missiles. | |||
:If I were sending a cruise missile against a shore target at a fixed location, GPS might be quite adequate, especially if it's in a relatively open area, or it has a WMD warhead that doesn't need precision. GPS is more problematic in built-up areas--ever tried to use it in a building? Most strategic strike cruise missiles use a combination of inertial and possibly GPS for the midcourse, and often terrain contour mapping radar. The more tactical ones use radar, infrared, or even low-light television for final acquisition. | |||
:The thing to remember about a carrier is that it is a moving and defended target. Here's the challenge: let's say you have a satellite photograph giving the carrier location 30 minutes before firing. GPS alone won't get you to the position you have to hit. In general, that means that the cruise missile needs to use active search radar for final acquisition, which also makes it electronically detectable. If it has a submarine or other platform doing close-in spotting, that helps for an ocean target -- although I recognize a carrier in port is an easier target. | |||
:So, it's not an impossible threat, plausible to fixed targets. For mobile targets, the problem becomes more complex; you aren't doing just fire and forget, but need to give the missile best position at launching, preferably known course, and then course updates. Three or four could sink a supertanker, but a supertanker doesn't have defenses. Note that newer satellites, as well as patrol aircraft, are designed to pick up the flame of the engine once a cruise missile is launched. | |||
:I'm NOT saying it's impossible, but it is important to put the thing in perspective. [[User:Howard C. Berkowitz|Howard C. Berkowitz]] 13:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:39, 27 April 2010
Not sure how it fits in here, but Slashdot have a link to NYT story on a shipping container with four cruise missiles inside. Lift off the roof & launch. http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/04/26/world/international-us-russia-weapon.html?_r=1 Sandy Harris 11:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. It might be a good starting point for realities, strengths and limitations of cruise missiles. Novator, incidentally, is a respected design bureau, but to air-to-air missiles.
- If I were sending a cruise missile against a shore target at a fixed location, GPS might be quite adequate, especially if it's in a relatively open area, or it has a WMD warhead that doesn't need precision. GPS is more problematic in built-up areas--ever tried to use it in a building? Most strategic strike cruise missiles use a combination of inertial and possibly GPS for the midcourse, and often terrain contour mapping radar. The more tactical ones use radar, infrared, or even low-light television for final acquisition.
- The thing to remember about a carrier is that it is a moving and defended target. Here's the challenge: let's say you have a satellite photograph giving the carrier location 30 minutes before firing. GPS alone won't get you to the position you have to hit. In general, that means that the cruise missile needs to use active search radar for final acquisition, which also makes it electronically detectable. If it has a submarine or other platform doing close-in spotting, that helps for an ocean target -- although I recognize a carrier in port is an easier target.
- So, it's not an impossible threat, plausible to fixed targets. For mobile targets, the problem becomes more complex; you aren't doing just fire and forget, but need to give the missile best position at launching, preferably known course, and then course updates. Three or four could sink a supertanker, but a supertanker doesn't have defenses. Note that newer satellites, as well as patrol aircraft, are designed to pick up the flame of the engine once a cruise missile is launched.
- I'm NOT saying it's impossible, but it is important to put the thing in perspective. Howard C. Berkowitz 13:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)