We have two stealth bombers, the B-2 and the misnamed F-117, and now a stealth fighter, the F-22.

But it seems to me that what we really need are stealth cruise missiles and ICBMs. Especally a supersonic cruise missile capable of being ground, sea (Underwater) or air launched, and large enough to carry thermobaric weapons like the MOAB.

A few thousands of these in the inventory should be capable of intimidating people who need to be intimidated!

Especially the real threat that we might give a few hundred of them to Isreal!

It's almost impossible to stop an exoatmospheric ICBM because, after the launch phase, the warhead comes straight down at the target(s) at supersonic speed and presents a small target.

Part of stealth technology is redirecting the exhaust but that problem could be overcome in a cruise missile. The DoD may just see it as too expensive. I'm all for it, sounds like a better idea than terrain following that most cruise platforms depend on.

Missiles don't need stealth. So far our missiles have been extremely efficient at getting to the target, there is no problem.

America has two missile strategies.
1) Surprise strike - The missiles hit their target before the enemy even knows the US intends to launch
2) Air Defence Neutralization - All American operations since the gulf war have completely dominated enemy air and missile defence capabilities in a matter of hours.

The fact is that our missiles are the top notch and don't need any improving in terms of defeating countermeasures.

[quote=Missileer]It's almost impossible to stop an exoatmospheric ICBM because, after the launch phase, the warhead comes straight down at the target(s) at supersonic speed and presents a small target.


I was thinking of an ICBM that would be undetectable until detonation of the warhead, and therefore untraceable back to it's source, to prevent retaliation..

There is still the problem of hiding the exhaust from liquid fuel boosters. Planes can do it with baffles and heat exchangers but the engines are extremely small compared to an ICBM.

The fact is that our missiles are the top notch and don't need any improving in terms of defeating countermeasures.

True or not thats the kind of thinking that loses wars. Theres always room for improvement.

Originally Posted by Rabs

True or not thats the kind of thinking that loses wars. Theres always room for improvement.

I agree acompletely. IMHO, we should be spending money and material on weapons development today just as if the cold war was at it's high point.

I know this is impossible to achieve, but I think that out goal should be the abiity to fight and win a full scale world war without taking a single casualty, or deploying a single soldier to a foreign country.

Again, this is an impossible goal, but IMHO, if a goal is achievable, you're setting your sights too low. If you aim for Pluto, you just might get to Mars.

[quote=localgrizzly]

Originally Posted by Missileer

It's almost impossible to stop an exoatmospheric ICBM because, after the launch phase, the warhead comes straight down at the target(s) at supersonic speed and presents a small target.


I was thinking of an ICBM that would be undetectable until detonation of the warhead, and therefore untraceable back to it's source, to prevent retaliation..

Hard to do. Even if the exhaust isn't detected there is still about 33lb's or Uranium on board that can be detected.