It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Plans to Shoot Down ICBM

page: 3
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 29 2017 @ 11:46 PM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

LWSD is being built for the Navy. It's going to have the same problems that the YAL-1 had with range though. That's a fairly inherent problem with any laser.




posted on May, 30 2017 @ 12:11 AM
link   
The YAL programme went dark, as far as we know.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 07:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: pteridine

LWSD is being built for the Navy. It's going to have the same problems that the YAL-1 had with range though. That's a fairly inherent problem with any laser.


It will have less problems with a power supply as it will be less constrained by weight and size. As a replacement to CIWS it could work well. Admittedly, the range problems are limiting. There was a plan at one time to use the laser to ionize the air and send a plasma pulse along the track. As I remember, this was also complicated by atmospheric conditions.
I have concluded that, based on public knowledge, boost phase intercepts seem unlikely at this time.

Bones....VF-84 or 103?



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 09:25 AM
link   
a reply to: pteridine

VF-84.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyingFox

It's dead. They scrapped the aircraft a few years ago. They sent the aircraft to the Boneyard after they found some fairly serious problems with the idea, then when they were getting it ready for storage they found major contamination from the laser in the airframe.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   
When they TELL us they can do this, then show us they DID this, I think the icbm thing was handled long ago...this was almost a DECADE ago...
spectrum.ieee.org...


This is what they say they will do these days...
www.defense.gov...

So who knows what is actually in play.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: pteridine

VF-84.


I understand robotech creator loved the f-14 and designed the veritech fighter after it. Now woudnt it be cool if we had actual versions of them in a black hangar somewhere?



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 12:01 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

They shot down a satellite in the 80s with a missile launched from an F-15. That's relatively easy. They're in a predictable orbit, on a non-moving path. They're not maneuvering or throwing out decoys. An ICBM is much much harder. It's a fraction of the size, moving faster, has decoys, and can move to avoid attempts to shoot it down.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 12:07 PM
link   
First i don't care if the US antimissile system only works 50% of the time.

NK is not going to launch just one nuke at us they will launch a number of missiles.

In my view stopping 50% is 50% less Americans dead before we turn NK into a glass parking lot.

I know that the First NK ICBM launched will cause the green light on the use of the high-tech THAAD anti-ballistic in SK to take out later launches from the NK.
en.wikipedia.org...

That will mean two systems, one boost phase and one coast phase.

then the US has the Aegis system on navy ships with our CBGs, and is looking at Aegis Ashore,
en.wikipedia.org...

Plus in some areas the US can use the US Patriot Advanced Affordable Capability-4 (PAAC-4)( David's Sling) missile system in the terminal phase.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 01:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ANNED

None of which are capable of stopping an ICBM. THAAD would have to be much closer to be able to hit in the boost phase, even if it was designed for that.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Did you really just say the icbm would be moving faster than a satellite that moves at 17500mph?

The link I posted was shown to the world almost a decade ago.
Am I to assume capabilities to be diminished?



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Yes. The newer missiles, none operational and most not flown yet, are aiming for a terminal velocity slightly higher than the speed of a satellite in orbit. It drastically reduces engagement time. Right now the RS-28 is one of the fastest missiles flying, at just under 16,000 mph.

Again, they shot down a satellite many years before that. Also, the system they used to shoot that satellite down isn't designed to stop an ICBM. A satellite doesn't maneuver or use decoys, again.

It's not a diminishing of capabilities. It's a case of a system that wasn't designed to do something being claimed it can.



Regional Defense – Aegis BMD Engagement Capability
Defeats short- to intermediate-range, unitary and separating, midcourse-phase, ballistic missile threats with the Standard Missile-3 (SM-3), as well as short-range ballistic missiles in the terminal phase with the SM-2.
Flight tests are conducted by Fleet warships. Each test increases the operational realism and complexity of targets and scenarios and is witnessed by Navy and Defense Department testing evaluators.
Homeland Defense – Aegis BMD Long Range Surveillance and Track
Aegis BMD ships on Ballistic Missile Defense patrol, detect and track ballistic missiles of all ranges — including Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles and report track data to the missile defense system. This capability shares tracking data to cue other missile defense sensors and provides fire control data to Ground-based Midcourse Defense interceptors located at Fort Greely, Alaska and Vandenberg Air Force Base, California and other elements of the BMDS including land-based firing units (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense, Patriot) and other Navy BMD ships.

www.mda.mil...

They can track an ICBM and guide an Interceptor fired from elsewhere, but they can't directly engage it themselves with their own missiles.


edit on 5/30/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/30/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Yes?
17500>"just under 16000"

So NK has these "newer" missiles you speak of?

So no reason to assume diminished capabilities?


This is from 2010
www.theguardian.com...



"The Missile Defence Agency demonstrated the potential use of directed energy to defend against ballistic missiles when the Airborne Laser Test-bed (ALTB) successfully destroyed a boosting ballistic missile," the agency said.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Did you miss the part that the ALTB was cancelled cut into pieces several years ago? So what system is going to be able to fly over North Korea and fire that laser that's no longer flying again?
edit on 5/30/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 02:26 PM
link   
www.digitaltrends.com...



The project has been in the works for a few years now, and has met with significant success in preliminary trials. In 2012, it was reported that a CHAMP mission in Utah managed to hit and subsequently disable seven separate targets in one mission, demonstrating its accuracy and precision.

This plus Aegis turns icbm's into trash no?

Again this is one of the things they are showing us.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So you don't disagree that the technology is available?
You just haven't seen it deployed or in action?
Wait a couple years...they will tell you about it.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

Seen it deployed? The Airborne Laser no longer exists. The range problem, the horrifying contamination problem, and the cost are all major problems that aren't going to be overcome any time soon.

I actually saw it sitting in the Boneyard sitting with the coverings installed getting ready to strip down what wasn't contaminated to hell and gone.
edit on 5/30/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

CHAMP will have its own problems to overcome. For one, being put into a missile that can survive long enough to get to the target area. Another is that, like EMP weapons it's going to have problems overcoming hardened targets like ICBM C2 systems.

Aegis doesn't "turn ICBMs into trash". The guidance allows the GBI a better chance at hitting but doesn't guarantee anything.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

nationalinterest.org...



Air Force scientists are working to arm the B-52 with defensive laser weapons able to incinerate attacking air-to-air or air-to-ground missile attack

Interesting date the story was posted.



posted on May, 30 2017 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: shooterbrody

How is a weapon designed to target electrical grids from a drone going to take down an inbound ICBM?

An ICBM travels at about 6-7 km per second. I don't know of a single UAV that can even begin to touch that. Unless green flash is an anti ICBM device...

The current NMD system we have is the GMD (Ground based midcourse defense). That system uses a kinetic projectile hurled into the path of an ICBM.

The Russian system, for example, the A-135 still uses a nuclear device to disable an inbound nuclear ICBM. Aegis and Aegish Ashore use blast fragmentation warheads on the tips of Raytheon SM-3 interceptors. That's a far cry from a laser based interception system. Even further from an EMP on a drone.



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join