AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2220 times:
Could the Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle be converted into an intercontinental cruise missile?
Granted, it's slightly less speedy than the CGM-86, but with its intercontinental range (7,500 miles), it could be launched in the continental United States and strike high-value targets a quarter of the way around the world. It might even be equipped with a nuclear weapon, such as the W-80, perhaps at some cost to its range. (The U.S. could compensate for range limitations by basing such a missile in Guam, a U.S. territory, or another U.S. base.)
On the other hand, the Global Hawk is not designed to be a low-flying terrain-following missile; but could it be converted to serve that purpose? And, anyway, could it serve as a high-altitude CM against countries that can't shoot it down at altitude?
DL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11433 posts, RR: 81 Reply 1, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2212 times:
It would be a waste of time and money to convert those airplanes into missiles.
THey are specialized reconnaissance assets and would not make very good missiles since they are not fast or maneuverable. Their primary defense is low visibility and high altitude.
We have plenty of delivery options for any type weapon we want to use in any conflict, and the Global Hawk is designed specifically for other purposes.
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2211 times:
Quoting DL021 (Reply 1): We have plenty of delivery options for any type weapon we want to use in any conflict, and the Global Hawk is designed specifically for other purposes.
I mean production of the converted design, not conversion of existing airframes.
DL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11433 posts, RR: 81 Reply 3, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2207 times:
Either way it would not be a successful cruise missile.....too slow and unwieldy.
Cruise missiles need to be fast and low to the ground able to move around terrain so they are not shot down.
Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21 Reply 4, posted (7 years 4 months 2 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2202 times:
It could indeed not be used as a cruise weapon itself.
I do see a possibly viable derivative that can serve as a launch platform for standoff weapons though, leaving the launching platform outside of SAM range and able to provide faster control data for midcourse corrections to the weapons it launches than can be provided from a control bunker thousands of miles away.
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29350 posts, RR: 62 Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 2034 times:
Quoting DL021 (Reply 3): Either way it would not be a successful cruise missile.....too slow and unwieldy.
Same problem the V-1 had.
Quoting Cloudy (Reply 5): The US cannot have ground launch cruise missiles because the INF treaty prohibits them.
That should only apply to nuclear warheads. I am pretty sure that non-nuclear ones aren't covered.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
AerospaceFan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2030 times:
Quoting Cloudy (Reply 5): No, because it would be a ground-launched cruise missile. The US cannot have ground launch cruise missiles because the INF treaty prohibits them.
That's an excellent observation on your part. I will have to look at the treaty. The question I would have is whether the INF would apply to intercontinental-ranged cruise missiles, rather than ones with intermediate or short range.
11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1646 posts, RR: 11 Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2027 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 6): That should only apply to nuclear warheads. I am pretty sure that non-nuclear ones aren't covered.
Actually INF applies to both nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers (300-3,400 miles).
Quoting AerospaceFan (Reply 7): The question I would have is whether the INF would apply to intercontinental-ranged cruise missiles, rather than ones with intermediate or short range.
As long as the missile in queston exceeds the range listed above, it isn't covered by INF although it may be regulated by the Treaty on Strategic Offensive Reductions (SORT) ratified in 2003.
Another interesting idea is to equip ICBMs with conventional warheads based on JDAM technology. This would create a highly accurate warhead that could be delivered to any point on the planet within 30 minutes.
Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 39 Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 2024 times:
Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 8): Another interesting idea is to equip ICBMs with conventional warheads based on JDAM technology. This would create a highly accurate warhead that could be delivered to any point on the planet within 30 minutes.
Wouldn't they be traveling rather fast at release? Would the warhead guidable?
Also, wouldn't ICBM launches set warnings off and cause all sorts of problems?
ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!
AFHokie From United States of America, joined May 2004, 222 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 1983 times:
Quoting 11Bravo (Reply 8): Another interesting idea is to equip ICBMs with conventional warheads based on JDAM technology. This would create a highly accurate warhead that could be delivered to any point on the planet within 30 minutes.
Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 9): Wouldn't they be traveling rather fast at release? Would the warhead guidable?
Also, wouldn't ICBM launches set warnings off and cause all sorts of problems?
The idea is feasible, but as said, you launch an ICBM, and the world is gonna think you just popped off a nuke at someone. Other countries out there that also have ICBM's aren't going to wait to see how big of a boom it makes before they start launching their own.
ICBM's will always be associated with nuclear warheads, and therefore, never be used for any other military application.
11Bravo From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 1646 posts, RR: 11 Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 1912 times:
Quoting AFHokie (Reply 10): Other countries out there that also have ICBM's aren't going to wait to see how big of a boom it makes before they start launching their own.
Clearly there would be launch-on-warning issues, but that is not a problem only associated with ICBMs.
We test fire ICBMs and other sub-orbital systems from Vandenberg AFB on a regular basis.
There are many orbital launches from a multitude of sites all over the world that could easily be confused with an ICBM in boost phase.
We have used cruise missiles in combat on many occasions, sometimes launched from submarines, that flew on courses that might have been mistaken for an attack on Russia.
We have used the Army Tactical Missile System in combat, once again, fired on trajectories that could be initially mistaken for a nuclear missile launch on Russia.
I suspect that most, if not all, of these events were detected by Russian and/or Chinese missile-launch early warning systems. There are a number of redundant communication systems that are used by the nuclear super-powers to insure that mistakes are not made when these events occur. I'm optimistic that we could figure out how to do the same for a conventional-warhead ICBM.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
