ICBM, SLBM , IRBM with conventional warheads

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?

Possibly, although that would invite a chemical and possibly nuclear response so I don't know if they'd do it first up. Also the DSP satellites track launch signatures so operators would be able to tell from the launch location the likely payload, launches from the GDR would likely not make NATO as twitchy as launches from Belarus.
 
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.

...you think single launches of unconfirmed nuclear missiles (and quickly confirmed as non-nuclear) will trigger an all out strike which everyone involved knows means the death of their own nation? Dude, even at the very height of launch-on-warning lunacy (which was largely gone by the time ICBMs and SLBMs eclipsed bombers) that would have seen you laughed out of the room.
 

SsgtC

Banned
...you think single launches of unconfirmed nuclear missiles (and quickly confirmed as non-nuclear) will trigger an all out strike which everyone involved knows means the death of their own nation? Dude, even at the very height of launch-on-warning lunacy (which was largely gone by the time ICBMs and SLBMs eclipsed bombers) that would have seen you laughed out of the room.
Yeah, and how many times was a "single launch detected" by either side and a full counter strike immediately ordered? A few times by both sides. It was only a handful of professionals who stopped it each time.
 
Yeah, and how many times was a "single launch detected" by either side and a full counter strike immediately ordered?

...that happened literary zero times. Every time false launches were detected, it involved a great deal more missiles, and never did anyone with the authority of a full counter-strike decided to order one.
Hell,the one time a USSR sub launched 4 actual missiles and one looked like it was flying towards the US, the US gathered a couple officials who dismissed doing anything. "Immidiate full counter-strike" indeed.
 

Khanzeer

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.
Ss23 was not expensive like an ICBM ?
 
TBM and IRBMs aren't going to be as expensive as a ICBM.
It would be interesting to model the life cycle costs of TBM's vs strike air craft in the context of a NATO vs WARSAW pact conflict, and model the impact of various loss rates for the strike air craft if they ever had to be used in combat.

I seem to recall some Cold War era proposals for large conventionaly armed short range TBM's based on SLBM boosters.
 
It would be interesting to model the life cycle costs of TBM's vs strike air craft in the context of a NATO vs WARSAW pact conflict, and model the impact of various loss rates for the strike air craft if they ever had to be used in combat.

I seem to recall some Cold War era proposals for large conventionaly armed short range TBM's based on SLBM boosters.

I suspect that's a key part of the USSR's (and Russia's today) calculus. Yes, aircraft can fly multiple sorties but the projected attrition rate for aircraft were so high that it might be more cost effective to go with TBMs. At least they'll get through.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
I suspect that's a key part of the USSR's (and Russia's today) calculus. Yes, aircraft can fly multiple sorties but the projected attrition rate for aircraft were so high that it might be more cost effective to go with TBMs. At least they'll get through.
But the payload is so small 500 kg of a TBM vs 3 tonne payload per sortie by a su17/mig27/su24
 
But the payload is so small 500 kg of a TBM vs 3 tonne payload per sortie by a su17/mig27/su24

TBMs are probably cheaper than any Soviet strike platform. TBMs don't require airfields that can be targeted by NATO inside it's OODA loop. 500kg > 0, if all your aircraft get shot down penetrating the extensive SAM belt in West Germany.
 
But the payload is so small 500 kg of a TBM vs 3 tonne payload per sortie by a su17/mig27/su24
I seem to recall the notional larger TBM's based on SLBM boosters had notional payloads measured in Tons. Of course those weapons were not built (at least as far as I know.)

In any event I expect even a 500 Kg warhead could be quite effective against certain targets.
 
I think OP is underestimating the scale that they would be used. The Afghans used two thousand Scuds from 88-92. There would be a dozen launched against each target, with dozens of targets assigned each day. Against an area target even a conventional HE warhead would be useful if employed en masse, and you're not losing valuable aircrew and aircraft that can be otherwise employed against more elusive targets.
 

Khanzeer

Banned
I think OP is underestimating the scale that they would be used. The Afghans used two thousand Scuds from 88-92. There would be a dozen launched against each target, with dozens of targets assigned each day. Against an area target even a conventional HE warhead would be useful if employed en masse, and you're not losing valuable aircrew and aircraft that can be otherwise employed against more elusive targets.
So would be ideal for bombarding area targets like airbases and basically paralyzing air operations ?
 
So would be ideal for bombarding area targets like airbases and basically paralyzing air operations ?

Air bases, cantonments and barracks, known headquarters facilities, POMCUS sites, port facilities, bridges, and air-defense network sites. Anything that's big enough to be hit by area weapons, can't be moved inside the USSR's own OODA loop, or other wise fixed to a known location.
 

SsgtC

Banned
Or maybe suppressing Sam's, radars etc to help manned air craft make it to their targets ?
Those targets are probably too small to reliably take out with any form of ballistic missile. With airbases and POMCUS sites, aim the missile towards the center of the base and it's almost guaranteed to hit something important.
 
Those targets are probably too small to reliably take out with any form of ballistic missile. With airbases and POMCUS sites, aim the missile towards the center of the base and it's almost guaranteed to hit something important.
I seem to recall that certain missile delivered cluster munitions were considered to be capable of that role, but your comment is a good one.
 
OTL isn't it generally supposed that the Chinese have SLBMs armed with conventional warheads for anti-carrier weapons?

That’s the popular claim. However, the supposed “carrier-killer” warheads have never been tested, let alone successfully hit a moving target in the middle of the ocean.
 
Those targets are probably too small to reliably take out with any form of ballistic missile. With airbases and POMCUS sites, aim the missile towards the center of the base and it's almost guaranteed to hit something important.

I've often wondered if this was a viable use for German V2s in WW2, especially as they became more accurate later on. Bomber bases in particular were packed like aircraft-carrier decks.
 
Top