can any one explain this ??

Originally posted by Dallas

Project HAARP.

HAARP stands for High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program.

What does it do? It sends a beam of radio energy into the ionosphere, about 100 miles (give or take a few) up.

What happens? The particles ionize, creating an effect similar to the natural aurora we see from when the Sun releases a Coronal Mass Ejection in the direction of Earth. HAARP was recently granted permission to create a visible aurora, which will be the first time for it.

If I haven't explained it well enough, you could try the HAARP Home Page.

Originally posted by Daedalus3
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

If you aren't that familiar with even primitive US/Russian missiles (like the Minuteman I) - I don't see how you can make comments like you did in paragraph 1. Yes, the flight path is plotted prior to launch - but the inertial guidance system is constantly making adjustments to counter external forces and inacuracies with the boost system. Neither the US or Russia publicly acknowledge deploying manuverable/correctable re-enrty vehicles - but both have the technology. I think you are confusing the lack of external guidance with guidance whatsoever.

The highlights of the Minuteman 1 were:
100% solid fuel boost section (for quick reaction and reliable launching) - this is considered to be FAR superior than cryogenic systems - as well as storable liquid fuels
storable hypergolic liquid fueled post-boost rocket engine for steering the RV
A digital, inertial, guidance system.

More info can be found at the following sources:

www.dtic.mil... - notes that the capability of the Trident SLBM to use manuverable re-entry vehicles is unclassidied - who knows what is still classified

www.nukestrat.com... - Official Minuteman weapon system history and description

www.geocities.com... - A very good unofficial history of the Minuteman missile - same site has a bunch of other US missiles.

Okay Im no expert on ICBM tech, and since you're poising your arguement to propound that ICBMs ARE electronically guidable post re-entry so that you can claim that they can be shot down by electronic warfare..
I withdraw my case because its a really twisted round-about way to prove your point..
But from where I stand ICBMs can be completely free of electronics and be just as precise and stealthy as post re-entry electronics-enabled ICBMs.
I'm just trying to formulate to mechanical event randomiser which is small and precise..With that ICBM MIRVs can be detached efficiently to fool missile defences...
Also you claim that russian and US ICBMs have post re-entry electronic guidance, a fact they both deny..so its not proof as such..funny actually because a purely mechanical ICBM would infact be better in such a scenario of electronic counter measures..

EDIT: after reading the links you gave (the second one is too long so didn't read it) , all i got was that the RVs were manueverable in the sense that "pre-planned flights pahts were embedded in the missile guidnace systems"

Having read all your posts with interest - I've suddenly had a thought.

Are you all talking at 'cross-purposes'.

Is the original poster confusing ICBM with land, ship, sub or aircraft launched cruise missiles?

Let me explain. In a previous existance, I was a defence Nuc, Bio, Chem warfare instructor and we had to study all this type of crap.

ICBM's are Inter-Continental pre-programmed ballistic missiles - usually with multiple RV's. They are the third generation of fire and forget missiles.

Cruise missiles on the other hand, are not fire and forget weapons. They need constant updating electronically, they need guiding electronically and they need to seek their target electronically.

Think about it. If you could fcuk about with a cruise missile's brain or jam it electronically, then you'd be able to make it miss it's target etc.

Is this what the original poster meant? I think it is.

Originally posted by fritz

Cruise missiles on the other hand, are not fire and forget weapons. They need constant updating electronically, they need guiding electronically and they need to seek their target electronically.

Some newer cruise missiles work this way, but many (especially nuclear ones such as the TLAM-N, Advanced Cruise Missile, ALCM-N) are also fire and forget. They have pre-programmed routes and guide themselves with no external guidance.

This was actually a big player in the first Gulf War. Since all US TLAM and ALCM missiles used terrain following primarily for guidance, the flat, featureless desert of Iraq posed a signifigant problem, as would completely reprogramming each missile to follow a new path (lots and lots of time). Luckily, the US had a bunch of missiles that were already programmed to go from the Persian Gulf to Russia, through the mountains in Iran. Simply program in a left turn, run into the Tigris, follow it for a while and whoolah - Baghdad.

if ICBM's have got no electronics, then the Faraday's cage, microwave electronics will be a complete waste.

correct me if i am wrong.

quote:
The most effective method is to wholly contain the equipment in an electrically conductive enclosure, termed a Faraday cage, which prevents the electromagnetic field from gaining access to the protected equipment. However, most such equipment must communicate with and be fed with power from the outside world, and this can provide entry points via which electrical transients may enter the enclosure and effect damage. While optical fibres address this requirement for transferring data in and out, electrical power feeds remain an ongoing vulnerability.



quote:
Where an electrically conductive channel must enter the enclosure, electromagnetic arresting devices must be fitted. A range of devices exist, however care must be taken in determining their parameters to ensure that they can deal with the rise time and strength of electrical transients produced by electromagnetic devices. Reports from the US indicate that hardening measures attuned to the behaviour of nuclear EMP bombs do not perform well when dealing with some conventional microwave electromagnetic device designs.



www.ncoic.com...



quote:
HPM weapons would be single-use and could be delivered on almost any a cruise missile or unmanned aircraft. Future devices are likely to be re-usable.

Military planners will be particularly interested in claimed ability of HPM weapon's to penetrate bunkers buried deep underground by using service pipes, cables or ducts to transmit the spike. Insulating equipment from such spikes, for example by using Faraday cages, is believed to be very difficult and expensive.



www.newscientist.com...