Can a Hardened Nuclear Missile Silo Be Disable With A conventional weapons strike?

Most ICBMs are solid fuel, so not sure why you think they have limited range. Only the very earliest ones used liquid fuel. The last of those the US used were phased out over 30 years ago.

No, the advantage of a liquid fuel over a solid fuel is that you have complete control of the burn rate, and can even "turn it off" at a selected point in time. With a solid fuel rocket, once it starts it goes at full throttle, never stopping until all of the fuel is expended.

 

In solid fuel rockets, the fuel is "built into" the missile, therefore never needs to be fueled. It essentially comes fueled from the factory.

 

And apparently a hidden fleet of thousands of unmanned stealth bombers.

Some really do live in the twilight zone.

 

For what its worth in the 1960s and 70s there was a great deal of research into techniques and technologies to make solid fueled rockets "throttleable" during flight.

Just thought you would be interested in knowing.

 

The ones that we are building:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...livered-optionally-manned-and-nuclear-capable

And we are planning to build at least 145 more:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...gets-endorsement-from-biden-air-force-nominee

We are also planning to build a new stealth ALCM for nuclear missions, although I was speculating about conventional strikes here.

 

Or play videogame...

 

I think our stealth bombers will penetrate just fine.

The bombers will be flying at a very high altitude, and will likely only be communicating directionally upwards.

But if necessary they can also be manned bombers. It would just be nice to avoid putting aircrews at risk if it can be avoided.

Hundreds. And not so hidden (unless one is trying to target them).

No. The bombers that we are building are quite real.

 

The bombers are quite real. And so are the bombs.

 

Yeah, I wouldn't bet on them considering the state of the usa presently. Also the last few US projects have pretty much been crap. F35, Zumwalt...

 

The F-35 is a pretty good plane if you don't insist on it doing air-superiority missions.

Countries that choose to think that our stealth bombers cannot harm them, are likely to end up being harmed by our stealth bombers.

 

Just like we planned to build 132 B-2 stealth bombers right?

Hypothetical bombers in 2021 don't mean anything in 2040.

Post again when there is actually rubber on the runway.
And if those B-21s (stupid name by the way) are carrying nuclear weapons then they cannot be unmanned.

 

The F-35 is crap because it was designed to save money.

The Zumwalts are crap because the U.S. Navy got sick and tired of hearing "Bring back the Iowas!" (battleships).

 

Yes the F35 is the new F5 and F16. It’s made for the export market but after seeing it perform and seing the cost per unit going higher than the F35can fly, most of the customers are cutting back on their orders or looking at alternatives.

The Zumwalts are already being retired from service because they’re a solution looking for a problem. They don’t even have the space to accommodate the necessary crew needed to insure that it can perform it’s mission if there are casualties or sickness.

 

Two have been built. Five more are in the process of being built.

Why not?

I was proposing a conventional attack on China's ICBMs anyway.

The F-35 does everything that a F-117 can do, everything that a F-16 configured for ground attack can do, and the B version can also do everything that a Harrier jump jet can do.

The F-117, F-16, and Harrier are all considered to be pretty good planes.

 

And all of them are obsolete!

 

The F-35 isn't obsolete though.

 

The short answer to this is yes but it would be very difficult and challenging. Probably impractical with long range.

Some things you might want to research which would be related to this are the US "bunker buster" used in the Iraq war, and also the Allied bombing of German offensive fortifications in Normandy during World War II. In a modern war, probably both those things would be impractical because it would be impossible for a large aircraft to get close enough.
The future might involve automated scramjets to carry large payloads at hypersonic speeds, and to make any dent into the hardened fortification would probably require several different stages, which would be like chipping away deeper into the fortification. If the silo is very economically constructed, or if lots of decoys are used, then destroying it could be much more expensive than the cost of construction.

 

I don't anticipate our stealth bombers having any trouble reaching China's ICBM fields.

 

A side note. I worked in the SAC underground headquarters in the 70s and during war games we were the first to be taken out.

 

China's technology is advancing at a very fast pace.
Just 10 or 15 years ago that would have been true, but today China's technology is quickly catching up to the US.
(And in large part because they stole much of that technology from American companies, and then a huge number of spies in the military forces and American defense companies)

 

I am not aware of any technology that would enable China to prevent stealth bombers from reaching and destroying their ICBM silos.

 

That has actually been accomplished, and is used in some applications.

Hybrid solid rockets use a liquid oxidizer and use that as a way to regulate the burning of the solid fuel. Burt Rutan's ShpaceShip One does this (with a rubber hydroxyl fuel with a liquid nitrous oxide oxidizer), and it can even be turned off during use, then reignited. But those are still considered "experimental", and no military uses it in their missiles therefore I did not mention it. And some can be "throttled" to a degree, with electricity being used to continue the burn, and it turned off to stop it. But in those, once the current is turned off it is in terminal freefall mode and can not be reignited.

Yes, I am quite aware of many of these technologies. But as the discussion is in ICBMs, I did not go into that as they do not apply. Although there has been speculation that the latter technology that can turn off an engine are in use.

 

No, they won't. Stealth does not mean "invisible". Nor does it mean "indestructible".

You are aware that missiles can track their target optically, right? Needing neither heat nor RADAR to lock on and destroy their target. Right?

And while only one country has actually announced they have designed and put such a weapon into service, do you honestly think that the US and other countries are not at least well along into this line of research? And even the best "stealth" can be defeated, it is really only limited by the power of the RADAR system trying to detect it. And it is absolutely worthless against the "Mark I Eyeball".

Oh yes, because we all know that radio emissions all hug the ground at low altitudes, *rolls eyes*

Do I even need to start discussing the way that long distance radio transmission works, via tropospheric bounce?

Oh, I have no doubt they are real. But will likely never be made into any large numbers, and will never be part of our Strategic Nuclear Forces. Especially as myself and most in the military are very well aware of how easily drones can be defeated by a technologically advanced country, and those are the ones we would most likely use nukes against. Hell, even our drone strikes in Syria were a problem, as EM interference made us scrap a great many of them and return to manned aircraft in that theater. And that is Syria.

Do you think Russia or China would be easier?

 

Here, I will agree 1/3.

Yes, the F-35A is largely a worthless plane. Made for the Air Force out of the remnants of the JSF program. Not as good as a Raptor, not much better than what is used already. But as it is also primarily made for export, we need it also as a demonstrator.

However, both the B and C variants were badly needed, and are excellent aircraft.

One of my biggest problems with people discussing the F-35 is that they try to discuss it as if it is a single aircraft. When in reality, it is three different aircraft. And it is about time the Marines and Navy finally get a fighter made more recently than the 1970's (or earlier).

 

two man rule the U.S. has for nuclear weapons.