Re: Interceptor downs missile in test over Pacific

Jerry Okamura wrote:

"Islander" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:TZudnaYnLbH5gmbZnZ2dnUVZ_rSdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Jerry Okamura wrote:


"Islander" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:ApadnfUL7-z9uGfZnZ2dnUVZ_r-dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Jerry Okamura wrote:



<dezakin@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1157226950.297329.181920@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



Earl wrote:



jgrove24@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote in
news:1157161629.670511.68260@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:




El Castor wrote:



Interceptor downs missile in test over Pacific
Fri Sep 1, 2006 2:42 PM ET

By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military shot down a target
ballistic missile over the Pacific on Friday in the widest
test of its emerging antimissile shield in 18 months, the
Defense Department announced.

The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said it had
successfully completed an important exercise involving the
launch of an improved ground-based interceptor missile
designed to protect the United States against a limited
long-range ballistic missile attack.

It would impress if they tried it during a rain shower and
randomly launched a target..everybody knew the target was
fired, so no BFD.



There are 3 items needed to be able to intercept 24/7

1) a radar system capable of detecting the launch and alert the
defense forces.

We built that in the '60s to handle the Soviets -- all we could
do was eliminate the launching country.

2) an interceptor that works. Demonstrated both with Navy system
and land based system. The Navy missiles were available some
time ago.

3) a system of launch locations on high alert ready to launch
when needed.

Just a matter of building the launch tubes and have rotating
silos on call. Just a variation of what we had before with SLBMs
and ICBMs.


All the components exist or just need to be paid for. No real
technical issues, just political ones. Do the politicians think
you are worth protecting?





Back in the ancient days we could spot a soviet mass launch, and
get the word out to our facilities in time to be of use.

Because of our close in SLBMs we could have HBombs exploding in
the Soviet Union about the time our cities started to evaporate.
And this was maintained 365/24/7 for decades.

So now we just launch interceptors instead of city killers.
(SLBMs were targeted at air fields, radars and other problems
for the bombers -- but the Soviets, with their poor roads put
them in cities.)


Note that the military will never promise full protection. It
will do its best but Murphy is in command -- so some missiles
will get through, unless you are willing to pay for 1000%
overlap coverage. Insurance is expensive.

Balloon decoys add maybe 1% to the cost of a ballistic missile and
completely defeat interceptors. Its a total waste of money.



What good does a balloon decoy? An ICBM when it is launched already knows where it is headed isn't it? Is it going to change direction because of some ballon decoy?

Good grief Jerry! You have it backwards. There are a number of problems that one needs to solve in targeting an ICBM. One of these is the release of decoy targets by the ICBM to confuse interceptor missiles. Balloon decoys are a part of that strategy because they are light weight (soas to not take up too much of the payload) and because they disperse rapidly and continue traveling at close to the same rate of speed as the warhead in the rarefied atmosphere at the apogee where critical targeting is done. Add to this the practice of using multiple warheads, aimed at different targets and you have a very confusing mixture of targets and decoys. At a minimum this delays targeting until the ICBM is further in its trajectory, even with the technical approaches that Earl has mentioned.


I understand decoys, but ballons? Even if you released ballons, as part of the missile it would seem to me, that they would very soon start to go a whole lot slower than the missile or its warhead itself....what am I missing?

The basic offensive strategy is to force the defense into delayed targeting. The less time that you have to solve the targeting problem, the more chance that some warheads will make it through to the target.


Well, yes. But it just seems to me that a more effective means would be to disperse multiple targets from one ICBM, going at the same speed as every other target.

In this case, it is not at all clear that the problem can be solved sufficiently well to be worth the cost. As Earl has pointed out on several occasions, some missiles will get through. Better to not have a false sense of security that might tempt you to assume a more aggressive behavior than you would if you know that you are not protected.


Ah, but you see, even if "some" missiles do get through, that also means "some" missiles will not get through. On one hand, every missile lands (assuming it does not malfuction) and on the other hand, only some of the missiles land.

Overall, it is not a good idea to use a strategy where any missles get through. This is why giving the politicians a false sense of security is a bad idea. It is much better to adopt strategies that eliminate the need for any nation to rely on offensive missiles.


I do not understand your comment. As it stands now, every ICBM that is launched with multiple warheads is most likely going to hit its intended target. How can it be a "bad" thing "if" you are able to only destroy one warhead? It seems to me the more warheads you can destroy before it hits its intended target is one less warhead that will wreck havoc somewhere in the United States.


The MAD strategy used during the cold war was not based on protecting American cities. It was based on protecting our launch sites in order that no rational attacker could depend on destroying our retaliatory capability. This is very risky strategy since it depends on rationality of the adversary. That is not something that we can rely on today and we need to move to a strategy which eliminates the threat. The military cannot provide us with that answer and are the first to admit that ABMs will likely never provide a perfect defense. That leaves us with only political solutions. On that front we are not doing well at all. That is a very strong reason to not give our politicians a false sense of security. As we have seen with this administration, they might be tempted to do something rash.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: QDR To Kill E-10, Cut B-52s
    ... launch detection capability, but no missile warning or tracking radar ... precision-guided warhead for this role. ... delta-V to simply fire right at the target and get the same impact. ...
    (rec.aviation.military)
  • Re: nbc Truth begins to emerge in Pakistani bombing nbc
    ... Worst case scenario with a drone is a lost drone. ... target is missed, for one reason or another, but innocent people are ... Four AGM-114N Hellfire II missiles, ... of the Pakistani parliament. ...
    (rec.music.artists.springsteen)
  • Re: Orion Drive space battle
    ... You don't just "dodge" enemy missiles. ... going to be perfect to ever be able to accurately target anything at ... no attempt on the part of either side to employ actual tactics. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Orion Drive space battle
    ... Except that the missiles are guided. ... intercept course with the target. ... so the KK ball bearings or nukes or whatever ... impact with the craft, it gets much easier. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.science)
  • Re: Interceptor downs missile in test over Pacific
    ... WASHINGTON - The U.S. military shot down a target ... The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said it had ... a radar system capable of detecting the launch and alert the ... go a whole lot slower than the missile or its warhead itself....what am ...
    (soc.retirement)
Loading