Could someone with knowledge confirm my theory that ICBMs were used not only for their high capacity but also their attack vector from ABOVE, instead of cruise missile vectors which are HORIZONTAL?
I believe ICBM's leave the atmosphere, so many traditional defenses simply can't reach up there to defend against them.
So coming close to straight down would likely be easier to avoid certain defenses. At the same time, space-based, or high-altitude defense systems may find ICBM's relatively easy targets.
I would think another benefit of coming from above might be speed of impact. By working with gravity instead of against it, I would think higher speeds could be achieved.
I'm just spitballing here. You should know though that I once held the top score on Space Invaders at the local arcade. So I have that going for me. Which is nice.
Nuclear-armed ICBMs do not have a terminal dive maneuver. Not needed for any reason. Fuzing is accomplished by altimeter. The guidance system is designed to result in a target dispersion error well within the blast radius of the weapon. (It's a tradeoff between accuracy and weapon yield. My old motto: "When in doubt, add more yield.")
However, if you are using a conventional warhead, you are far more sensitive to target dispersion errors and need to reduce them as much as possible. This leads to a vertical terminal maneuver, as it nullifies any lateral error resulting from projection of a height error. This is used in conventional guided bombs of the JDAM variety. It may be that this "Oreshnik" missile has such a terminal maneuver, especially if it has a terrain-recognition seeker.
Could someone with knowledge confirm my theory that ICBMs were used not only for their high capacity but also their attack vector from ABOVE, instead of cruise missile vectors which are HORIZONTAL?
I am not an expert.
I believe ICBM's leave the atmosphere, so many traditional defenses simply can't reach up there to defend against them.
So coming close to straight down would likely be easier to avoid certain defenses. At the same time, space-based, or high-altitude defense systems may find ICBM's relatively easy targets.
I would think another benefit of coming from above might be speed of impact. By working with gravity instead of against it, I would think higher speeds could be achieved.
I'm just spitballing here. You should know though that I once held the top score on Space Invaders at the local arcade. So I have that going for me. Which is nice.
Nuclear-armed ICBMs do not have a terminal dive maneuver. Not needed for any reason. Fuzing is accomplished by altimeter. The guidance system is designed to result in a target dispersion error well within the blast radius of the weapon. (It's a tradeoff between accuracy and weapon yield. My old motto: "When in doubt, add more yield.")
However, if you are using a conventional warhead, you are far more sensitive to target dispersion errors and need to reduce them as much as possible. This leads to a vertical terminal maneuver, as it nullifies any lateral error resulting from projection of a height error. This is used in conventional guided bombs of the JDAM variety. It may be that this "Oreshnik" missile has such a terminal maneuver, especially if it has a terrain-recognition seeker.