Re: Interceptor downs missile in test over Pacific

Jerry Okamura wrote:

"Islander" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:xNmdnUZtzuTqTGHZnZ2dnUVZ_qidnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


Jerry Okamura wrote:



<dezakin@xxxxxxx> wrote in message news:1157407688.386672.158090@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



El Castor wrote:



Islander <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:




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.

As in all military systems, defense is much more difficult than offense.

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.


There are so many things that I simply don't understand about you
people, and your dedicated unwavering opposition to the ABM is one of
them. Has it occurred to you that an ABM injects an element of
uncertainty into the plans of any potential aggressor, and uncertainty
may in itself be a powerful deterrent. To deliberately leave our
largest cities exposed to obliteration by some nut job trying to coax
a messiah out of a well just so we will not have a "false sense of
security" is utter madness, and the reason why people of your ilk will
hopefully never set foot in the White House.


The problem is ballistic missile interceptors cant ever work againtst
an enemy that has discovered mylar balloons.

Only time you can reliably kill is in the boost phase (you have about 2
minutes maybe) or the terminal phase (about 30 seconds).



Laser weapons operate at the speed of light, far faster than any missile can possible achieve.


As I have explained before, the problem with directed beam weapons including laser weapons is aiming. Weapons with sufficient power can only provide that power for a very short period of time. Since the target is small and the beam narrow, it is extremely difficult to get it on target for the time needed. This is a much more difficult technical problem than hitting the missile with an ABM which can use terminal course correction. Even here, as we have seen, the ABM approach is very difficult and expensive to implement and doesn't give us much protection even if we get it right.



Yes, but that is just another technological problem, that if you work at it long enough with enough resources, we can solve.




You remind me of President Kennedy when he said, "*First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and returning him safely to the Earth."

Yes, this is just another t*echnological problem we can solve.
.

Relevant Pages

  • 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)
  • Re: Interceptor downs missile in test over Pacific
    ... The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said it had ... launch of an improved ground-based interceptor missile ... long-range ballistic missile attack. ... a radar system capable of detecting the launch and alert the ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • 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 ... launch of an improved ground-based interceptor missile ... a radar system capable of detecting the launch and alert the ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Interceptor downs missile in test over Pacific
    ... The Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said it had ... launch of an improved ground-based interceptor missile ... long-range ballistic missile attack. ... a radar system capable of detecting the launch and alert the ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • 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 ... warhead in the rarefied atmosphere at the apogee where critical targeting ...
    (soc.retirement)