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.

 

The original US ABM systems (safeguard)

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 03:23 AM
link   
Im sure there aren`t many people here who know of the Origianl US ABM systems.

Project SAFEGUARD

What was safegaurd?

Safeguard was a 2 part ABM system - 1 missile designed to engage warheads in exo-atmosphere , and the other , faster more agile , designed to engage warheads on the terminal phase , endo-atmosphere.

Both had ER warheads (XRAY enhanced)

The type of weapon is the X-Ray enhanced radiation weapon - these were the W71 warhead used in the Spartan , as part of the `SAFEGUARD` ABM system of the 1970`s. These were around a 5MT warhead , but the secondary was surrounded by GOLD to enhance the X-RAY radiation effect to attempt to neutralise the incoming ,exo atmospheric wareheads.

But its still a 5 MT warhead with all the blast/heat properties of one, just with xray enhancment!



Spartan ABM (on the right) with Sprint ABM (on the left)


*sorry if the image is big*

The safeguard site was activated on the 1st october 1975 at full readiness (30 spartans and 70 sprints) , the day after congress voted to shut it down - the base came off alert on november 18th 1975 and was decommissed february 1976 - the warheads were dismantled in 1995.

Nuclear ABM`s were limited under the SALT 1 teaty , limited to 100 missiles and 2 sites (later reduced to 1 site) - the russians still actually have there system around moscow (in operation)


so there we go - the ABM isn`t new - and i recall a conversation with someone who worked on the base at the time of the announcement of there closure - the most memorable quote is

*the b****** have taken our shield from us*


a VERY good site for alot more info

srmsc.org...




posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 02:51 AM
link   
No replies yet ? Sad. Good topic area, sorta a lessons learned exercise.

Lets see, from :

www.globalsecurity.org...

a quote:

"It started out as the SENTINEL project, which was supposed to provide nationwide protection against a light ICBM attack. When President Nixon shifted the emphasis of the program to defending ICBM fields, the United States wound up using an area defense system for a point defense mission. The area defense concept involved the use of the large, powerful long-range radar systems that were hallmarks of the Mickelsen complex. In addition to being subject to blackout caused by the detonation of nuclear warheads, these radar systems could be attacked directly. Once they were destroyed, the SPARTAN and SPRINT missiles were electronically blind and therefore useless. "

While I agree that the ABM system is not new, an autonomous, non-nuclear kill system is.

The folks that believed in the system regarded it as a true shield. But knock out the eyes and the bullets are useless.
And here is a little horror scenario that raises ugly questions on an untested system. Plant a sub in the North pole area.
Launch a few missles south, but totally unarmed (if you get caught, it was a test gone wrong, no nukes, no harm done).
Safeguard goes into action, with potentially 100 times 5 MT = 500 MT of fireworks over the Northern US and Canada.
How's that for shooting yourself in the foot ? Ergo, star wars has to be primarily an autonomous, non-nuclear kill system .
5 Billion dollars that lesson cost. Wonder how much the Russians paid for their version ?



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 05:11 PM
link   
This is the only type of Anti missile system that can actually work to a high degree.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 08:42 PM
link   
Agreed, doesn't even have to hit the missile, just blow up close to it and the ICBMs blasted to smitherines.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 02:43 AM
link   
or more rather , neutralise with x rays.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 11:07 AM
link   
srmsc.org...

a video of the sprint missile launching - the first part is in slow motion - whilst the second half is at normal speed - good grief its fast!!

from what i`ve heard , the sprint was supersonic when it left the launch silo!!



posted on Jan, 27 2006 @ 05:38 PM
link   
Yup, good old fashioned US technology at it's best, and copied in Russia. I can't wait to see what they come up with next! (I mean really, that was 30 to 40 years ago!) I suspect directed energy weapons are in operation as we speak, and in this role, it's just way beyond our pay grade!



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   
the problem is, whether you take out the enemy missile or not, you've just done a whole lot of damage to yourself in the process. From a short term view, (less than 24 hours), you've done just as much as you just shut down anything within Line of Site to your interceptor bird. Which could be 3-4 states! Better to smash into the target at stupidly high speeds, knocking it into so many little pieces it can no longer function as a nuclear weapon. If you can keep from turning it into a dirty bomb, that's even better, but I'll settle for the lack of needing SPF 4x10^28 sunscreen.



posted on Jan, 28 2006 @ 09:05 PM
link   
It just goes to show how serious the Russians were about saving their capital city from what probably seemed like an impending American onslaught.

Its always interesting to hear how truly scared the "big bad commie" Russians were about the Cold war...and see how human they are, just like us.



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sandman11
Yup, good old fashioned US technology at it's best, and copied in Russia.


So i guess i finally see what your really about. You could have just told me that believe what you want whatever the facts suggest.


I can't wait to see what they come up with next! (I mean really, that was 30 to 40 years ago!)


Well next they might try to emulate the Russian ABM/SAM defense that fields over 10 000 launchers today.


I suspect directed energy weapons are in operation as we speak, and in this role, it's just way beyond our pay grade!


Russian have been deploying ground based lasers since the early 80's so it's probably time the US starts catching up.

Stellar



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Travellar
the problem is, whether you take out the enemy missile or not, you've just done a whole lot of damage to yourself in the process.


World of difference between a small yield nuclear weapon that explodes at 10-15 km above ground and a large yield one that explodes at ground level or a few km's above the target area. The fallout is hardly as deadly as is commonly believed and the USSR made extensive preparations to evacuate cities or shield most of the target population with passive shelter systems and food stockpiles.


From a short term view, (less than 24 hours), you've done just as much as you just shut down anything within Line of Site to your interceptor bird. Which could be 3-4 states!


These "facts' have been overstated by politicians who are not willing to pay the price to implement these systems. The Chief's of the US army were very much in favour of this system in the 60's and it's clear that they have workable solutions even back then .


Better to smash into the target at stupidly high speeds, knocking it into so many little pieces it can no longer function as a nuclear weapon.


The Russians managed to intercept a IRBM in 1961 with a conventional explosive warhead so one has to assume that the US could have managed the same feat with the effort the Russians expended.


If you can keep from turning it into a dirty bomb, that's even better, but I'll settle for the lack of needing SPF 4x10^28 sunscreen.


Nuclear fallout effects are vastly overstated in almost all regards and i suggest you take a look at my posts on the following thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

If you can work trough that you will be very well informed on this topic.

Stellar



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by nightwing
In addition to being subject to blackout caused by the detonation of nuclear warheads, these radar systems could be attacked directly. Once they were destroyed, the SPARTAN and SPRINT missiles were electronically blind and therefore useless. "



Building on the ABRES experience, the NIKE-X system that emerged in 1963-64 was a revolutionary advance in ABM technologies combining a powerful, multi-aperture phased array radar (MAR), an IBM 360 type computer, and a high acceleration missile (SPRINT) for low altitude intercepts. NIKE-X was designed against MIRVs with high performance RVs, while the computer and the SPRINT interceptor took advantage of atmospheric filtering to discriminate precision engineered decoys and other countermeasures. The MAR radar combined battle management, target and interceptor tracking functions and was highly resistant to nuclear effects. The only high confidence way to overcome the NIKE-X system was to exhaust the stock of interceptors with real RVs

www.fas.org...


Goes to show this issue was rather quickly dealt with.


While I agree that the ABM system is not new, an autonomous, non-nuclear kill system is.
How's that for shooting yourself in the foot ? Ergo, star wars has to be primarily an autonomous, non-nuclear kill system .


Russians tested conventional interceptors in 1961 when they also managed their first IRBM intercept. It could be done even then.


5 Billion dollars that lesson cost. Wonder how much the Russians paid for their version ?



US retaliation would also be blunted by Soviet strategic defenses, which absorb about $40 billion annually (five times the amount allocated to SDI).This includes $10 to $12 billion for air defenses, $3 to $5 billion for civil defense, and $15 billion for "Star Wars."According to CIA reports, production lines for manufacturing large numbers of radars and interceptors exist, and a nationwide system could be deployed within the next ten years. Jastrow believes that the components might even be stockpiled already.

www.oism.org...


Their still spending massive ammounts even to this day.

Check out my posts on this page where i go into some detail as to why i believe the US made political instead of sound strategic decisions when it decided to abandon a logical and effective self defense system.


At the end of the briefing McNamara accepted the cost-exchange ratios as being no more than 4: 1 in favor of the offense (down from 100:1), which made NIKE-X cost-effective by the standards he had prescribed. (12) However, in an emotional outburst during the briefing McNamara rejected the evidence that the Soviets put first priority on destroying MM silos in order to limit damage to the USSR, saying that as a Soviet Marshal he would target the entire arsenal on U.S. cities. Hence he refused to approve NIKE-X deployment to protect U.S. citizens from the FSU on the grounds of MAD theology--U. S. ABM defenses would be "destabilizing" by forcing the Soviets to respond with a massive MIRVed ICBM buildup.

The Joint Chiefs used a version of that 1966 NIKE-X briefing to ambush McNamara when they met with President Johnson at his ranch in December 1966, persuading Johnson to overrule McNamara and order deployment of U.S. national ABM, although not the defense against the FSU that the Chiefs proposed.(13) While the Chief's briefing is not available, a memo for the record prepared by W. W. Rostow, then President Johnson's national security adviser, is.(14)

According to Mr. Rostow's memo, the Chiefs recommended MIKE-X deployment at 25 cities to save the lives of 30 to 50 million U.S. citizens, if attacked. McMamara opposed the Chiefs' proposal on the grounds of MAD theology and simplistic "action-reaction":

* it was "inconceivable" that the Soviets would react in any other way but to restore the status quo ante, i.e. 120 million U.S. population fatalities;
* both sides would spend a lot of money and end up where they started, but we would waste the most because offensive weapons were so much cheaper than ABM systems;
* the danger of war would not be reduced;
* the FSU had "been wrong in its nuclear defense policy for a decade" because everything spent on all types of defenses (air and missile) had been wasted.(15)

The Chiefs saw it quite differently:

* NIKE-X would save tens of millions of lives against a Soviet population attack, and that was a worthwhile objective;
* while they could not predict with confidence how the Soviets would react, all likely reactions had a substantial price and would divert funds from other military programs--no free lunches;
* the risk of nuclear attack would be reduced

www.fas.org...


Stellar



posted on Jan, 31 2006 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Sandman11
Yup, good old fashioned US technology at it's best, and copied in Russia.


So i guess i finally see what your really about. You could have just told me that believe what you want whatever the facts suggest.


I can't wait to see what they come up with next! (I mean really, that was 30 to 40 years ago!)


Well next they might try to emulate the Russian ABM/SAM defense that fields over 10 000 launchers today.


I suspect directed energy weapons are in operation as we speak, and in this role, it's just way beyond our pay grade!


Russian have been deploying ground based lasers since the early 80's so it's probably time the US starts catching up.

Stellar


Oh yea dude, you got my number all right!!!

Just so you know, the US has been blinding Soviet Spy satellites for 30 years plus. Optics blinding equipment has been in the field on both sides for 20 years. Who knows what else has been developed within that time span, on either, and probably both sides, so I doubt it is the US that has to "catch up", but that is up to the individual opinion at this classification and pay level, unless you want to declare something really classified and interesting,,, (late at night, in Cape Town South Aferica, ....knock knock, "Ahh Mr. Stellar, would you please step outside for a moment...")

As far as the top level ABM capable missiles, you don't have the energy at the level of the "Dual capable SAMS" to have much reliability. Mach 6 just won't protect much territory outside about 40KM, which doesn't do much for a "National ABM" system. Most accounts give the SA-5 about a maximum of Mach 5, and the SA-10 about Mach 6 capability. THAAD goes Mach 8 plus, some say Mach 10, although that system is not yet deployed.
Even Patriot is Mach 5 and with that velicoty it can protect an area only about 20 to 30 km out from the launcher. Something like Sprint, or Spartan went Mach 10 plus. You are not talking about enough missiles even at 10,000 "Dual capable" SAMS with that capability, only a very limited very short range effectiveness. And if you are talking about today, there are huge gaps in the BMDS radars since the demise of the Soviet Union for any "credible" defense...
russianforces.org...



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sandman11
Oh yea dude, you got my number all right!!!
Just so you know, the US has been blinding Soviet Spy satellites for 30 years plus. Optics blinding equipment has been in the field on both sides for 20 years.


**Before i start i must ask why you keep refusing to properly formulate your responses? Are you not getting any warnings from the mods or are you just too lazy to listen to them? You have been doing this for weeks so i am wondering what your motive is other than trying to avoid addressing my points properly.

Well if you can source the claim about Soviet Sat's getting blinded that would be great as it could show how long this technology has been used by both sides. You do realise that soviet lasers not only blinded but "permanently damage" American spy satellites as far back as 1978?


Who knows what else has been developed within that time span, on either, and probably both sides, so I doubt it is the US that has to "catch up",


Mabye you should look into what Major-General George Keegan ( head of airforce intelligence in the early 70's) had to say about Soviet preparations before just picking what suits you best. At first he was attacked from all sides for talking about soviet particle beam weapons research and deployments. IT was denied that it was possible for just a few years when everyone suddenly started agreeing that the US could now suddenly deploy the exact same weapons inside a few years. The DIA even have art depictinging Soviet mobilie lasers in Afghanistan....


but that is up to the individual opinion at this classification and pay level, unless you want to declare something really classified and interesting,,, (late at night, in Cape Town South Aferica, ....knock knock, "Ahh Mr. Stellar, would you please step outside for a moment...")


Here we go again with the appeal to superior sources! If you cant produce at least SOME "evidence" from SOME crazy person online your clearly far crazier than ayone online wich is really saying something in this day and age.


As far as the top level ABM capable missiles, you don't have the energy at the level of the "Dual capable SAMS" to have much reliability.


I disagree. Your source?


Mach 6 just won't protect much territory outside about 40KM, which doesn't do much for a "National ABM" system.


I disagree and so did America's leading military men so please produce your sources.


Most accounts give the SA-5 about a maximum of Mach 5, and the SA-10 about Mach 6 capability.


The SA-5's peak speed is around Mach 8 ... Feel free to source your claims.


THAAD goes Mach 8 plus, some say Mach 10, although that system is not yet deployed.


Obviously depends on who you believe same as it does with numbers for Russian missiles. I do not doubt that America could have deployed even these in the 60's but if one looks at Russian rocket development in the same era i really see no reason why they could not have done the same.


Even Patriot is Mach 5 and with that velicoty it can protect an area only about 20 to 30 km out from the launcher. Something like Sprint, or Spartan went Mach 10 plus. You are not talking about enough missiles even at 10,000 "Dual capable" SAMS with that capability, only a very limited very short range effectiveness.


No one is suggesting a wall around the USSR and these systems were placed in critical areas to protect from likely American SLBM/bomber launch areas mostly in the Western USSR.


And if you are talking about today, there are huge gaps in the BMDS radars since the demise of the Soviet Union for any "credible" defense...
russianforces.org...


The authors of the site mostly work ( 5 out of 7 since 1991) at the Center for Arms Control, Energy and Environmental Studies at MIPT( Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology, and they were all educated in Moscow aswell it seems) and the way they present their information ( compared to western sources) leads me to believe that their probably spreading disinformation and getting paid very well for it. It's a well known fact that Russia has made a huge profit by using aid money from the US to do anything but disarm thier old nuclear warheads and other weapons systems.. Russian is spending money on it's strategic missile forces ( majority of it's arms budget) so they would not let the early warning capability lapse in any way shape or form. Either Russia has new ways of indentifying and tracking BM or the systems being talked about in that article is not in as bad shape as suggested.

Stellar





[edit on 1-2-2006 by StellarX]



posted on Feb, 1 2006 @ 03:36 PM
link   
Sources please?
I need one to counter the sourced claim I made that Russia has HUGE gaps in it's BMDS. Gaps which would make not only a credible national defense impossible, but gaps that would not even allow for a "launch on warning" capability??? I also believe it is in the Bulliten of Atomic scientists website somewhere as well (I'm sure you think they are Russian misinformation as well?) but you don't give any evidence to make me want to waste more of my time to prove you wrong.

PS, also, SA-5 Mach 8 claim, feel free to source that claim. If you don't have any proof to disprove my claims then you are just saying "my sources are better than your sources". I don't have evidence to classified programs on either side. Please share them if you do.

This link is proof of yet another unclassified weapon in the airborne laser catagory.
www.freerepublic.com...
Add to it the ABL, a very large airborne laser that takes up the space in a 747. Then the THEL, which can shoot down tactical rockets. And don't forget the latest DD(X) the navy is designing will include a laser. *US Navy.
Just imagine what might be "Classified" and too large to fit in a 747...

And ABM speed was one of the limiting factors that was limiting either power to use and test ABMs in the ABM treaty. I will let you look up that one.

[edit on 1-2-2006 by Sandman11]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 06:21 PM
link   
And I suspect this baby will do much more than "blind" optics or aircraft or missile weapons.

www.israeli-weapons.com...

Built with the US, and tested almost ten years ago in the US.
Don't you think that we have progressed beyond this by now????
And the Russians were broke for the decade defense wise.
And the US spent almost as much as it ever did during the Cold War on an anual basis.

Why is it impossible for you (Stellar)to think that this is not in any "strategic" application? You clearly think we are stupid. Just one other reason why the US canceled the ABM agreement.



posted on Feb, 3 2006 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarXBefore i start i must ask why you keep refusing to properly formulate your responses? Are you not getting any warnings from the mods or are you just too lazy to listen to them?


Reading this individual's posts reminds me why South Africa was the World's pariah for the last 40 years or so. They all seem to have a form of mass Tourettes, I know this because I have the misfortune to work with 2 of them.

As for Spartan/Sprint, they were a good first step but ABM technology (and ICBMs unfortunately) have come a long way since then. Non-ballistic trajectories are just another twist to contend with.

[edit on 3-2-2006 by Winchester Ranger T]



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 03:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Winchester Ranger T
Reading this individual's posts reminds me why South Africa was the World's pariah for the last 40 years or so.


And we were, as all the other pariah states, supported fully by the west till the bitter end. I doubt you know anywhere near as much as you supposed you do and if you continue i will have to correct your ignorence publicly.


They all seem to have a form of mass Tourettes, I know this because I have the misfortune to work with 2 of them.


And i guess we are special in that we are extremely willing to forget the wrongs we have commited against others. I do not know what planet you imagine your from but that must be it as South-Africa have never had a monopoly on evil. You should send those two guys back as they have no business running away from the mess they probably helped to create.


As for Spartan/Sprint, they were a good first step but ABM technology (and ICBMs unfortunately) have come a long way since then. Non-ballistic trajectories are just another twist to contend with.


Itching to disagree with you but your not really giving me something to work with yet....

Stellar



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 08:03 AM
link   
"And we were, as all the other pariah states, supported fully by the west till the bitter end. I doubt you know anywhere near as much as you supposed you do and if you continue i will have to correct your ignorence publicly."


The West had bigger problems with the cold war which made such "pariah states" issues a low priority, relative to conducting a world wide nuclear conflict. Thus, the US was guilty to some degree of making any country a friend if it opposed the USSR. "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and made for some intersting bedfellows.

And the modesty and mannors demonstrated by this person are truely breathtaking. But it does make the debate lively.



posted on Feb, 4 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sandman11
The West had bigger problems with the cold war which made such "pariah states" issues a low priority, relative to conducting a world wide nuclear conflict.


ANyone who did not know that has no business commenting on South Africa or any other country with such obvious minority run governments.


Thus, the US was guilty to some degree of making any country a friend if it opposed the USSR. "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", and made for some intersting bedfellows.


Guilty to some degree of supporting brutal mass murdering tin pot third world dictators and savages? Lets protect democracy by getting rid of it? It's this towing-of-the-line type text book quoting that worries/bores me to death.


And the modesty and mannors demonstrated by this person are truely breathtaking. But it does make the debate lively.


Debating ignorence is rarely fun and almost never enlightening.

Stellar



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join