Other ideas for Missile defense

.
My impression is that the US government didn't do much research into various possible methods of defending against incoming missiles.

Question: Isn't a guided missile a kind of expensive and elaborate method of hitting an incoming missile?

Is this a case of having a hammer [expensive sensor guided missile] so you treat everything as a nail?

It takes a lot of lead time to get your missile launched and targeted after the incoming missile is already launched. It also means you may start, in anxiety, responding to things that are not missiles such as aircraft, satellite debris, meteor.

I wonder if you could either use some form of EM radiation against incoming missiles or a stream of small highspeed projectiles?

Can you either super-heat or ionize the air infront of the incoming missile.
EM goes at the speed of light and therefore the response/turnaround time is not as severely critical.

I thought of intersecting microwave beams infront of an incoming missile to superheat the air infront of and/or the missile itself to effectively damage or destroy it. Thinking microwaves may be limited in range, so i wonder about UV radiation being used to ionize the air infront of the missile. Not sure what effects that might or might not have. UV penetrates clouds i believe and i think it carries over a distance well.

Alternative idea two:
Using a stream of very small very highspeed projectiles to hammer/puncture incoming missile.
If heat from air friction is a problem they could be coated with ceramic. That might entail their being fired with compressed air. [Imagining converging air compression cylinders]
If the precision is high enough and they hit almost the same place on the incoming missile it would tear a hole in it and then start tearing up the inside of it. That should disable it.

Both methods sound [maybe only sound] cheaper and a good deal simpler than the idea of having to launch a guided missile to hit a missile. I think the response time would be quicker with either. Also being cheaper they could be used even if a missile launched multiple decoys. ie. they are cheap enough that you could multiple target the decoys as well as the actual missile.

Aren't wars often won by those using the quick and dirty methods as opposed to trying to be grand and a bit pompous?

Rational explanations why these ideas are unworkable or problematic are welcome.

Other proposed possible methods are also very welcome.
.

Other proposed possible methods are also very welcome.

I'd say that trying to hit a warhead on the way down is a waste of time. It's travelling way too fast. Imagine trying to hit a bb shot at your face with a spitball. It's coming down at that point, either way.

The largest threat is SLBM or sub-launch missile, so you have to design a fleet of many surface vessels that can sit on the surface and when an SLBM is detected below them (unique air-release audio signature for each type of sub-tube) or when it pierces the surface, you immediately launch a pursuit vehcile which will come up on the rear of the missile as it moves through the launch-cycle. You want to explode it from behind before it gets high in the air. An SLBM will actually come to a standstill once it broaches the water and when the first stage kicks in. It has a lot of inertia to overcome and you could easily hit it from behind.

This also applies to ICBMs. Hitting the delivery vehicle in the ascent phase is the best method. The ascent phase will bring the missle's trajectory over allied countries where it is climbing and a faster missile can intercept it from behind.

Once the final stage of a nuclear missile begins to descend, you then have to deal with six to twelve independent warheads which can maneuver on their own. Hitting them is very tough and anyway, they'll still lbow up unless you score a direct hit with your spitball.

Either way, you should have caught it earlier.

There are currently methods that will remove the missile. The USAF Minuteman missile has what is termed as RV (Reentry Vehicle) which is the warhead itself. There is a method that the RV is rendered inert 100%. Most scientist behind this type of research and design have had their products taken by the government under the grounds of National Security junk. Private research projects have proven 100% success which the subject of missile defense system. The Veneficus Project has in fact two designs that can and will remove the threat.
The Veneficus Project is American scientist whose funding is from overseas ( Asian) countries, not the DOD or US.

[edit on 25-3-2005 by drrdw]

Weeeeee need to make energy shields on ships, and have laser on them to shoot down missile!!! but... we are too Primitive

Lasers work pretty well.. I havent been keeping track of everything but in 97 or 98ish I read up on the plans for a fleet of 747's equipped with lasers and laser turrets on the ground.. Pentagon wanted a dozen by 2010 or somethin like that. I can only assume there was some advantage with missiles (although lasers would not have technicially violated treaty like our missile defense did).
Lasers worked pretty good tho.. they destroyed a few retired satellites as tests. Just heats it all up until it goes boom.

For now missiles are the best bet. A million dollar missile is accurate enough to destroy an incoming missile. The US Navy has been highly successful using Aegis ships to destroy ICBMs.

If you think it's a waste to shoot a million dollar missile at a missile, what is the cost of not shooting down the missile?

Originally posted by drrdw
There are currently methods that will remove the missile. The USAF Minuteman missile has what is termed as RV (Reentry Vehicle) which is the warhead itself. There is a method that the RV is rendered inert 100%.

[edit on 25-3-2005 by drrdw]

Yeahhhh, right...... You wouldn't mind sharing some sort of, well proof? Evidence? Anything? I thought so.

Given the people who would like to see the minuteman rendered inert (basically every country except Japan, S. Korea, Australia, Britian and a few others) - do you really think the US could stop a private company from exporting a system or an idea? Or that no other foreign scientist would come up with an idea? Or since the US Minuteman has a similar RV to all other US weapons (and probably most Russian ones) wouldn't that make all US nuclear weapons inneffective?

Here's my thoughts on the subject.

Optical (light) works well, but you can't use light to selectively heat up air right in front of the missile (wavelengths that will heat the air won't penetrate it) - but you can heat the missile. The problem is that the RV (the part that re-enters the atmosphere) is coated to withstand extreme heat. The best way to use optical systems are in the boost phase, like the airborne laser, or while the guidance system is still attached to the RV. It also requires a line of sight, and only chemical lasers are powerfull enough and mobile - but they can't operate very long.

Microwaves/RF systems - Virtually any ICBM/SLBM will be designed to withstand a nuclear environement, so the (realitavely) small amont of microwave energy that can be produced with standard systems will have no effect. The missile might be at risk early in flight, but microwaves are line-of-sight and there is no way to make even a realitavely compact RF transmitter for the kinds of power needed. We're talking several city blocks of amplifiers and antenna's here.

Dumb projectiles - First, good RV's can/will be able to manuever making targetting them very tricky. Bad RV's wander around anyway making targeting difficult as well. These projectiles will also need to be fired with enough energy they will probably enter orbit - causing a bunch of space junk. Think of it this way - if it's really hard to hit something with a projectile you can guide towards the target, it's going to be pretty much impossible to hit something with a dumb projectile.

Basically, a good anti-missile stystem would consist of (1) lasers and missiles near the launch to attempt to shoot it down when it is most vulnerable, (2) a mid-course system to hopefully catch the rest, and (3) a terminal system as a last ditch defense for high-value targets. The US is currently working on all 3 (1) Air-born laser, Navy THAADS, (2) The most publicized, the Army's NMD system (3) Some variant of the Patriot

we should have a 3 level anti-missile on our ships.
first level is hitting a missile with a missile for long range. second defense is using laser for mid range. if any missiles past defense one and two then short range missile defense comes in, which is the Phalanx system

Put the Patriot Missiles on ships for long range defense


For mid range use laser, this would do

ship with laser

if those two didn't kill the missile use this
Phalanx


and if all fails use something like this

except put it on ships

[edit on 25-4-2005 by ulshadow]

Actually you're really close to the Navy's missile defense, except they have more layers.

It goes:
1. CAP Aircraft
2. SM-2 or SM-3
3. ESSM or Sea Sparrow
4. CIWS (Phallanx, RAM, or SeaRAM)
5. Chaff or Flares
6. Evasive Manuevering

I'm not sure where the lasers from DD(x) will fit in, I don't know anything about their range.

I like the shield idea.

Starwars51
I wouldn't be so fast to throw the BS flag at drrdw. I've got six years in the navy as a fire controlman (weapon system tech) and I've been a defense contractor for over 7 years now, working on the next generations of the Aegis Weapon System. drrdw doesn't post very often, but I have been surprised by some of his posts. He knows what he's talking about, a lot more than he lets on.

Edit:
Have Rope for Stupid People!

[edit on 25-4-2005 by PeanutButterJellyTime]

since its so important, why not use armed satalites? you could put whataver you wanted on them, lasers, misles, massive guns (somepthing like a huuuuuge sniper rifle would work best, i think), you could even put mine like structures in low orbit, with rocket motors that detect the thret and crash into it before it starts its decent....

(yah i thought the first idea was better to)

Originally posted by Fiction of Truth
since its so important, why not use armed satalites?...

That would be a violation of internation law, in particular the outer space treaty. I wouldn't doubt that many countries have working plans to weaponize space - but no one wants to be the first one to violate the established treaties....

damed treties...... always spoiling my the fun

Originally posted by Fiction of Truth
why not use armed satalites?

That was one of the concepts attempted in Reagan's Star Wars plan, the SDI. It proved to be too technologically challenging at the time.

For now missiles are the best bet. A million dollar missile is accurate enough to destroy an incoming missile. The US Navy has been highly successful using Aegis ships to destroy ICBMs.

Current missiles in the US arsenal is too slow and too short ranged (talking specifically about the Patriot). ICBMs will have very long range, and they travel really really fast. They will also descend as warheads detached from the missile body, probably accompanied by dummy warheads as well. The patriot only has range of 160 km max, and max speed of about Mach 5. The best chance it has against an ICBM is to shoot it down right after the ICBM is launched, since that's where it's slowest. I don't know how fast ICBM warheads descend from space but a Mach 5 missile is not going to be enough. Some tests were conducted with some new missile defence missile (some mod of the Patriot I think...) and it failed to intercept the incoming warhead

I saw this from a popular science article so no links, sorry. The truth is, current US anti ballistic missile missiles have very limited capabilities.

Btw

I wonder if you could either use some form of EM radiation against incoming missiles

That would be laser, and it's already being done. Any EM radiation of longer wavelength than laser, such as microwave, will spread out way too much, and the intensity of that wave hitting the warhead from long distances would be minimal. Microwave is only good for zapping stuff you put in microwave ovens.

[edit on 28-4-2005 by Taishyou]

I found this article on space based laser research by the air force research laboratory.

www.afrlhorizons.com...

answers some of the questions / points from others above.

Originally posted by Fiction of Truth
since its so important, why not use armed satalites? you could put whataver you wanted on them, lasers, misles, massive guns (somepthing like a huuuuuge sniper rifle would work best, i think), you could even put mine like structures in low orbit, with rocket motors that detect the thret and crash into it before it starts its decent....

(yah i thought the first idea was better to)

yea, i always think about this, space base lasers are cool, it should also use the sun as energy like in that james bond movie hehehe

Some tests were conducted with some new missile defence missile (some mod of the Patriot I think...) and it failed to intercept the incoming warhead

Check out these links:

Navy TBMD
Navy TBMD
Navy Linebacker
Navy TBMD
ABMD
ABMD
ABMD
ABMD

The ABMD, Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense, is coming along very well.

Treaty's C'mon you really don’t think the US Government is going to stop because of some treaty.

The Pentagon has plans to weaponize space and develop systems dedicated towards fighting a war in space and system's with capabilities to strike earth targets form space. Such systems include Lasers, Missiles, Energy beams, Space Planes and others. Its still a long time away in the future but the plans and money are there. Just google U.S. future Space weapons.

Pentagon Space Plans
U.S. Space Weapons
U.S. Space Weapns2

[edit on 28-4-2005 by WestPoint23]

I know this may sound weird, but it's the only thing I haven't heard of for BMD. Huge fast firing AA 'flak' guns to shoot down incoming missiles or warheads.