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.

 

can any one explain this ??

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 04:53 AM
link   


The world is focused on frying all the electronics of any incoming ballistic missile that leave the earth’s atmosphere and then reenter the same on the other side of the world.

Most countries have use electromagnetic waves, laser and low frequency arrays to create billions of watts on of energy in the ionosphere to fry all the electronics of an incoming missile.

The Russians just created huge noise in the missile race by creating a that takes of vertically and then all on a sudden takes a 90 degrees rotation to fly like a cruise missile across the continents.


Missile experts realized very well that Ballistic missiles are useless since most countries can manipulate the ionosphere to destroy the missile.

Consequently they decided to focus on cruise missile and target accuracies.

Today the Missile experts are focused on non-Ballistic missiles that never has to face the challenge of manipulated ionosphere and is stealth in normal radar



source




posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 06:58 AM
link   
I dont mean to be rude and pardon me if i am being stupid but what exactly did you want explained???



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by JamesBlonde

I dont mean to be rude and pardon me if i am being stupid but what exactly did you want explained???


that intercontinental rockets are almost useless, cuz most nations would be able to produce electromagnetical pulses, to destroy the rockets before they reach their aim, I agree with him, even my small european country has such stuff, and since last year, even rockets that can destroy electrical stuff on long ranges when it reaches its aim.

So nowadays more researches are done to make rockets stealthy



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 01:36 PM
link   
IMO the rocket trajectory is already predefined when launched; i.e. it cannot be controlled once it enters the "ballistic phase"...
After the fuel is exhausted the missile basically is just a free-falling projectile..no active guidance..
Ad for arming of the war....well again i SUPPOSE it must be doen in the pre-ballistic flight phase and then down-counted using a mechanical timer;
therefore unaffected by electronic warfare..
This is all of the top of my ...
don't know it for sure..but to me it sounds logical..



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 07:33 AM
link   
Good find on this one.
Read what he has posted, think about it for more than a second, and you will see what the issue is here.
The article talks about how well defended most nations are, and how they use all sorts of weapons to make the ionosphere unsafe for ballistic missles.

Good find on this one my friend, certainly raises a few questions does it not??
Like where is all this gear based? who runs it? who owns it??



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 07:35 AM
link   
heres a cool link for you all to follow, a cool piece of aircraft/ laser work from lockheed.

www.lockheedmartin.com...

nice close ups of the laser actually fitted!



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by MadGrimbo
Good find on this one.
Read what he has posted, think about it for more than a second, and you will see what the issue is here.
The article talks about how well defended most nations are, and how they use all sorts of weapons to make the ionosphere unsafe for ballistic missles.



I never missed the point..the article talked about electronic warfare against ballistic missiles..thats where the ionosphere came in..

If you read MY post correctly then you'd realise that the art of "BALLISTICS" is devoid of electronics, thus making all balllistic projectiles comparatively stealthy to electronic warfare, ecm, emp etc etc..
On re-entry ballsitic missiles are free-falling with no electronic guidance hence making them immune to such warfare..



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   
Todays ICBMs are resistant to the electromagnetic waves etc (at least russian and american). They are also inertionally guided.It is not possible to fry electronics in them by EM pulse or jamm them. They are shielded and BTW it is only possible to destroy transistors/chips with em pulse older electronics is EMP resistant (russian were/are? using such one). That article is total BS and an author saying "manipulating the ionosphere to destroy a balistic misille" doesn't know what he's talking about.

[edit on 18-2-2005 by longbow]



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 02:18 PM
link   
I don't think a lot of people really understand how the missile works... It follows a ballistic arc, hence the name. The rocket motor is only burning long enough to get into space and the gravity pulls the rocket back to Earth (hopefully nearby its target)

This image may help illustrate how the arc works.


Also, here's a little java applet/game just for fun. From apples to orbits



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   
I just maxed out the velocity and put the angle at 1. Hit every time. This only works when you have line of site. It would be cool to shoot at something over the horizion. Now that takes skill.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 06:50 PM
link   
cmdrkeenkid you should play the online game gunbound with that diagram you'd do well =P



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 07:59 PM
link   
sorry Kid,
but todays ballistic missles are not just throw up and pray missles. they are fully guidable, steerable, targetable weapons systems.

They can be taken down with energy weapons from lasers to masers and particle weapons. The ionosphere can be used to get them on the way UP, i repeat, on the way UP.

www.fas.org...

Read this...and then know that an ICBM is not just an up and down weapon.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by MadGrimbo
sorry Kid,
but todays ballistic missles are not just throw up and pray missles. they are fully guidable, steerable, targetable weapons systems.

They can be taken down with energy weapons from lasers to masers and particle weapons. The ionosphere can be used to get them on the way UP, i repeat, on the way UP.

Read this...and then know that an ICBM is not just an up and down weapon.


Just because todays US ICBMs are more sophisticated doesn't mean you can take them down with EM pulse (or ionosphere manipulation). It's not too difficult to shield a device against EM waves.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Yeah, put all the electronics into a faraday cage and you'd be pretty much set, right? Sure, signals couldn't get in, but I would think there could be ways around that with some sort fo onboard navigation.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 10:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy



(India's) Missile experts realized very well that Ballistic missiles are useless since most countries can manipulate the ionosphere to destroy the missile.




I put the "India's" back in from the source which you had deleted. The fact is, India's missile "experts" have extremely little experience or knowledge when compared to other countries, in particular the US and Russia, but China, France and the UK as well. India's missile technology today is about as capable as the US's and Russia's from over 50 years ago.

I think the author greatly underestimated how robust modern, advanced re-entry vehicles are. They are designed to withstand not only the great heat and de-acceleration associated of re-entry - but also intense ionizing radiation (good ICBM's will go through the van-allen belt), and EMP effects of nearby nuclear detonations. There is no known system that can manipulate the atmospere to destroy such robust RV's.

[edit on 19-2-2005 by Starwars51]



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by MadGrimbo
sorry Kid,
but todays ballistic missles are not just throw up and pray missles. they are fully guidable, steerable, targetable weapons systems.

They can be taken down with energy weapons from lasers to masers and particle weapons. The ionosphere can be used to get them on the way UP, i repeat, on the way UP.

www.fas.org...

Read this...and then know that an ICBM is not just an up and down weapon.


Did you even read the article in toto?
The guidance systems are ONLY for the boost pre-ballistic phase..thats the only time missiles are guided..once into ballistic flight the missile is even out of the control of the launcher...
That is why there are so many protocols in place to prevent accidental launch...
Just because ICBMs are not electronically guided doesn't mean they're "throw and pray" weapons..
the trajectory is made precise by extremely sensitive inertial nav systems..

On a different note.. Indian missile technology is way behind its american counterparts agreed, but way behind as in 10-20 years...not "50 years"



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   
eerrr did you read my post in total??? i said ON THe WAY UP.

I agree that Indias tech is way behind the US/UK/Russia, and if i had seen that, i would of said so when i posted.

This has got me interested though, as i would like to explore more into just what is and is not availible today...

any threads people??



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3

Did you even read the article in toto?
The guidance systems are ONLY for the boost pre-ballistic phase..thats the only time missiles are guided..once into ballistic flight the missile is even out of the control of the launcher...
That is why there are so many protocols in place to prevent accidental launch...
Just because ICBMs are not electronically guided doesn't mean they're "throw and pray" weapons..
the trajectory is made precise by extremely sensitive inertial nav systems..


Not so. In fact, both the Minuteman and Peacekeeper missiles have a "post boost rocket engine" that manuevers the re-entry system up intil re-entry. This is done both to position the system to launch multipile RV's and to confuse enemy defenses (along with dispensing chaff). Both the US and Russia also posses the capability to have RV's that can guide themselves up until detonation of the war..

And the current Indian state of the art missile is less capable than a Minuteman I - which was designed in the very early 1960's. And their war.s are actually far less capable. I think 40-50 years is a pretty good estimate. It's kind of hard to tell becuase the advances that both the US and Russia have made in the last 15 years mostly haven't been deployed due to the end of the cold war.



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   
The RVs are not "real-time" guided post boost phase..their scatter paths are pre-plotted and embedded into the mechanical timer release which is also responsible for initiating the core chain reaction...
Its nothing but a complex projectile physics system, hugely intricate, agreed, but core projectile physics nonetheless..
There is NOTHING guided about ICBMs...especially post-re-entry...
That is why tracking and building missile defences for ballistics is tough..
And also more importnatly thats why numerous procedures are implemented in the govt hierarchy for preventing accidental launch..
this is because even though once launched an ICBM takes a 'long' 30 mts.(approx) to semi-circumnavigate the planet, nothing can be done by the launching party itself to alter its destiny, post-boost phase..

I am not too familiar with the Minuteman-I tech..What are the highlights?
India does not research ICBM tech because it does not perceive any threat at that range...so the military aspect of ICBMs is not a relevant criterion for gauging India's tech level..
IMO India's tech level can be considered to be highlighted by :
1. Basic Cryogenics
2. Re-entry capability
3. GSLV launch capability
4. Lunar orbital insertion capability



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 12:17 PM
link   
Project HAARP.
Dallas



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join