ICBM, SLBM , IRBM with conventional warheads

Khanzeer

Banned
As far as I know none of the ICBM, SLBM OR IRBM had nonnuclear warheads
Would it be possible esp for Soviets to mount conventional warheads on them esp for antiship missions and cluster munitions ?
 
First, the fact that most TBMs or larger are nuclear armed means that you have to assume that they are nuclear armed. Second, guided anti-ship missiles are more effective in the anti-ship role than ballistic missiles that are launched at a stationary point. Free-flight artillery rockets are better with cluster munitions because many of them can be launched together.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Technically, a SCUD is an IRBM and they have routinely been fited with conventional warheads. However, if you're asking about a major power using ICBMs or SLBMs with conventional payloads, then no. You won't see that. For one very good reason: any ICBM or SLBM launched outside of well publicized and duley informed test launches, will immediately trigger a full counter strike with nuclear armed missiles. Why risk that when cruise missiles and bombers can do the job just fine?
 
It's also pretty expensive to toss a what at most would be a 2-3 ton payload, at about $50-100 million a pop (depending on the ICBM in question).
 

Khanzeer

Banned
Technically, a SCUD is an IRBM and they have routinely been fited with conventional warheads. However, if you're asking about a major power using ICBMs or SLBMs with conventional payloads, then no. You won't see that. For one very good reason: any ICBM or SLBM launched outside of well publicized and duley informed test launches, will immediately trigger a full counter strike with nuclear armed missiles. Why risk that when cruise missiles and bombers can do the job just fine?
Why did the Soviets have conventional warheads for SCUDs then ? They were pretty inaccurate and must have been pretty expensive too ? For a modest payload of 500kg
 
ICBM's with conventional warheads would be a horrible idea launch a couple and your enemies would naturally assume they're nuclear equipped missiles and launch a full retaliatory strike on you
 
Why did the Soviets have conventional warheads for SCUDs then ? They were pretty inaccurate and must have been pretty expensive too ? For a modest payload of 500kg

First because of their flight trajectory they not as likely to set off the extensive early launch detection systems. Doctrinally they were to employed more like extremely long ranged artillery to strike fixed locations, possibly augmented by chemical weapons. Finally, because NATO had them too.

Russian doctrine still heavily empathizes them with the modern Iskander class of weapons. Its believed that they would be used much the same way the US uses its stealth aircraft, as low probably of intercept platforms to get PGMs on target.
 
As far as I know none of the ICBM, SLBM OR IRBM had nonnuclear warheads
Would it be possible esp for Soviets to mount conventional warheads on them esp for antiship missions and cluster munitions ?

There was a suggestion that some early Russian ballistic missiles had warheads loaded with radioactive materials as they did not have sufficient nuclear warheads. I have some doubts though.
 
IRBMs have a minimum range of 3,500 km. The SS-20 is the archetypal example. The Scud family started as a TBM and evolved into an SRBM.
MRBM/IRBM differential isn’t totally set in stone though. I have seen shorter range be called IRBM.

To the OP, a conventional ICBM, IRBM is very expensive and big artillery shot. Waste of money.
 

SsgtC

Banned
OTL isn't it generally supposed that the Chinese have SLBMs armed with conventional warheads for anti-carrier weapons?
No, China only has one operational SLBM, the JL-2. It's honestly a rather primative missile too. It's got good range, 4,500 miles, but it isn't MIRV'd. It's pretty similar to the Russian R-29 honestly, a 45 year old design. You might be thinking of the DF-21D, which is a land based anti-ship ballistic missile. Short of using nukes though, it's usefulness in that role is highly suspect since the ships being targeted can put miles between themselves and where the missile is targeted between the time the missile is launched and when it hits.
 
The anti-ship ballistic missiles that the Chinese use are guided (with terminal radar homing) and use hardware based on the Pershing 2's Maneuverable Re-entry Vehicle (MARV). The reason they aren't particularly more dangerous than a Kh-22 is because they have to point a radar beam downwards, which cannot be done with the RV enveloped in the plasma sheath that generates during re-entries above Mach 8 or so. The infamous 25 g pull-up maneuver the Pershing 2 executes prior to radar activation is there to slow the RV down enough to actually use the radar. Although the RV is still coming in at extremely high speeds around Mach 6 or Mach 7, this is within the intercept envelop of modern Standard missiles, unlike the Mach 10 to Mach 12 re-entry a more standard IRBM of a similar size to the DF-21D would make.
 
Because ballistic missiles are a bitch to intercept

This is about the size of it.

Sure a Scud has a short range, small payload and poor accuracy but if its the only way you can get 500kg onto a target then it's awesome.

When facing the West smaller poorer nations air forces can't go head to head with or even avoid interception by swarms of AWACS-controlled, networked, BVR capable fighters. So conventional attack aircraft are merely useless targets, tied to blindingly obvious strips of tarmac.

However once launched the only thing that can stop a Scud is very high end TBMD, and if they miss then the payload is going to land. If the enemy can time multiple launches at the same target area then intercepting them is a very tough ask.

As for the target; airbases housing Western coalitions are literally packed with expensive, fragile aircraft and a single well placed 500kg warhead could wreak havoc thats well worth the cost of the rocket.
 
If I recall correctly the biggest actual use of vanilla SCUDs was after the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan when they were the most effective way for the government to hit Mujihadeen bases well behind the front lines.
Tactically - instaboom with absolutely no warning hundreds of Km away from the nearest enemy forces and independent of terrain, weather etc.
Operationally - rather than needing to maintain all the panoply of a modern airforce with bases, airframes, ordnance, spares, lots of trained personnel, attrition reserves, rescue orgs etc, just have an ally supply you with some TELs, a bunch of missiles and training for a handful of crews who can stay in barracks and blow shit up from the parade ground.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
This is about the size of it.

Sure a Scud has a short range, small payload and poor accuracy but if its the only way you can get 500kg onto a target then it's awesome.

When facing the West smaller poorer nations air forces can't go head to head with or even avoid interception by swarms of AWACS-controlled, networked, BVR capable fighters. So conventional attack aircraft are merely useless targets, tied to blindingly obvious strips of tarmac.

However once launched the only thing that can stop a Scud is very high end TBMD, and if they miss then the payload is going to land. If the enemy can time multiple launches at the same target area then intercepting them is a very tough ask.

As for the target; airbases housing Western coalitions are literally packed with expensive, fragile aircraft and a single well placed 500kg warhead could wreak havoc thats well worth the cost of the rocket.
Given this didn't the Soviets plan to use their other Missiles like ss23 and ss20 in a similar fashion with conventional warheads against NATO airbases ?
 
Given this didn't the Soviets plan to use their other Missiles like ss23 and ss20 in a similar fashion with conventional warheads against NATO airbases ?

Not the SS20, which is an IRBM, and thus not really in the same league. But I think the SS23 was to be used as a conventional weapon against NATO airbases.

However its important to keep in mind that the USSR was also going to be battling it out with NATO in the air, not the one-sided conflicts we've seen since 1990. So ballistic missiles would merely be another feather in the Soviet cap, rather than the crown jewels.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Not the SS20, which is an IRBM, and thus not really in the same league. But I think the SS23 was to be used as a conventional weapon against NATO airbases.

However its important to keep in mind that the USSR was also going to be battling it out with NATO in the air, not the one-sided conflicts we've seen since 1990. So ballistic missiles would merely be another feather in the Soviet cap, rather than the crown jewels.
I was under the impression that the Soviet TBMs and SRBMs were primarily supposed to use chemical weapons on air bases, equipment lagers and supply depots?
 
Top