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 Anti-Ballistic missiles over-rated

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 12:38 PM
link   
It is obviously unfortunate that certain people in this thread seem to totally forget the worlds only fully operational full spectrum ABM , one that is now in its 3rd decade of service




Its uses the The 51T6 [GORGON] exo atmosphere and The 53T6 [GAZELLE] endo atmosphere missiles.

Both missiles have been tested in the last few years from the silo`s.

[edit on 22/6/06 by Harlequin]




posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 07:53 AM
link   
It seems that I have made a whopping boo-boo in my analysis; mistaking reports of ground based interceptor system being installed in Alaska/California for THAAD. Unfortunately I can't edit my previous posts. The silos I found relate to that program not THAAD and have a much greater range. The GMD is a promising system but as yet has "limited" operational ability at best.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   
They just had another sucessfull test of the SM3 interceptor from the USS Shiloh.

abcnews.go.com...


If you are not aware, we have submarines and other ships widely scattered across the Pacific and Atlantic ocean, capable of shooting down medium and long range missiles.

They are far from over rated.

Plus they had a test in May 25 of a SM-2 interceptor, the test was to hit the missile in its descent phase. which was sucessfull.

www.missilethreat.com...


[edit on 23-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Uh, we do? We have now (I THINK) THREE Aegis ships that are capable of shooting down a missile. Two are currently off the coast of Korea, and one is in Hawaii where the test was just performed. Subs are NOT capable of shooting down any missiles at all. They're not even capable of SEEING a missile unless they see it launch through the scope. Aegis is the ONLY ship based system capable of it, and then only with the SM-3 or the modified SM-2s.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Zaphod, I agree with nearly everything you've said and add that although I boo-booed on the GMD/THAAD location mix up much of what I said about the limitations of THAAD's engagement envelope re IRBMs like NK's Taep'o-dong 1/2, carries over to the Standard SM-3.


Originally posted by Zaphod58
Aegis is the ONLY ship based system capable of it, and then only with the SM-3 or the modified SM-2s.


You are forgetting Aster. It seems to be much shorter ranged and is designed mainly for shooting down incoming anti-ship missiles (including supersonic diving ones) but it is generally credited with an ABM capability loosely equivilent to Patriot PAC-3 in terms of envelope.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 10:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Planeman
...much of what I said about the limitations of THAAD's engagement envelope re IRBMs like NK's Taep'o-dong 1/2, carries over to the Standard SM-3.


Care to explain? The SM-3 has more than double the engagement envelope of the THADD and is capable of intercepting a separating warhead during the ascent/midcourse phase, as was demonstrated by this latest test. Not to mention that unlike the THAAD AEGIS ships can sit off NK coast and be within range of its missile site.


The mock warhead was launched over the Pacific atop a medium range missile and destroyed in a direct hit six minutes later with an SM-3 missile fired by the Aegis cruiser USS Shiloh, the agency said.

"The missile successfully intercepted the target warhead outside the earths atmosphere more than 100 miles above the Pacific Ocean and 250 miles northwest of Kauai," the agency said in a statement.

The mock warhead separated from the three-stage target missile. The direct hit marked only the second time a separating warhead has been successfully intercepted by a missile fired from an Aegis cruiser.

Link


[edit on 23-6-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Sorry I thought submarines were capable of launching SM3's and SM2's , but I think I am wrong, since I cant find any unclassified information about it to back up my claim. Also, submarines are capable of seeing whatever is up-linked to them from other surface based ships and other systems.

Also, I am certain we have MORE than THREE ships with Aegis systems.




[edit on 23-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 10:42 AM
link   
We have more than three Aegis ships of course. BUT we only have three that have received the software/missile upgrades required to shoot down a ballistic missile. The plan has always been to phase the system in over time and gradually test it before adding it to more ships.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 10:43 AM
link   
I believe currently multiple AEGIS ships can be used to track and target missiles but only a limited number are equipped and configured to fire the SM-3 IA because it has not gone into full production yet. Later this they’re supposed to be deployed in more AEGIS ships.


In 2005, the first fully operational Aegis BMD system will be deployed on an Aegis destroyer. MDA will conduct rigorous tests, using this initial deployment to integrate the AN/SPY-1 with SM-3 and improve the accuracy of the interceptor. In 2006, the Navy will deploy nine Aegis ships outfitted with SM-3 missiles and configured to carry out ballistic missile defense operations from almost anywhere in the world.

Link



[edit on 23-6-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
We have now (I THINK) THREE Aegis ships that are capable of shooting down a missile.



There are FOUR ship CLASSES in the world equipped with AEGIS.

Only two of those classes are owned by the United States.

The TICONDEROGA class and the ARLEIGH BURKE class.

There are 27 Ticonderoga class ships.. And 28 Arleigh Burke class ships.

navysite.de...

All of them are capable of shooting SM2's.

I would like to see your resource of information that says otherwise.


[edit on 23-6-2006 by LAES YVAN]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 11:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Care to explain? The SM-3 has more than double the engagement envelope of the THADD and is capable of intercepting a separating warhead during the ascent/midcourse phase, as was demonstrated by this latest test. Not to mention that unlike the THAAD AEGIS ships can sit off NK coast and be within range of its missile site.


The altitude, 100 miles (160km) is exactly what is said of the max altitude and is about the same as THAAD (quoted as 150km). BUT, what is the range? - that is the big question.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 11:12 AM
link   
one point that immediately springs to mind with a missile that has a longer range [ horizontal ] than maximum altitude is :

at range greater than 50% of its altitude limit -- it would have to be fired inbound BEFORE the missile it is intended to hit was launched


the origional graphic planesman posted showed that thaad had an almost square engagement envelope

but SM-3 could engange at lower altitudes to a far longer range -- thats fine to ensure you have a confirmed kill of an inbouned cruise missile thats heading FOR you

but to target a missile heading at a tangent to you -- the massive over water range -- with out the altitude is useless

if you launch in direct response to thier launch -- my the time your missile has flown horizontally the requisite distance - the enemy misile will have risen above its ceiling
-- ooops

so how do you launch BEFORE they do -- without wasteing lots of missiles -- lol



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Ignorant ape got there before me...

Looking at the data in the latest SM-3 testing source there is a very big DOUBT as to whether the SM-3 is particularly capable of intercepting North Korea’s Taep’o-dong 1/2 missiles in ascent except from very SHORT ranges.

The SM-3 test hit a target at 160km altitude (widely quoted as the max engagement altitude for SM-3 and 10km higher than THAAD) 6 minutes (360 sec) after the ballistic missile’s launch.

We know from past Taep’o-dong 1 tests that they can reach 200km within 265 sec. So it is too high for the SM-3 (or THAAD) within about 160 seconds of launch.

Therefore the SM-3 launch position has to be close enough that it can see, ID and fire, and still get there in under 160 seconds.

The SM-3 missile has a basic maximum velocity of about Mach 3.5 (at least the booster and second stage dual thrust rocket – both same as SM-2 Block IV). Compare that to the Arrow ABM which reaches about Mach 9!

PS. Interesting fact: Each Standard SM-3 missile costs $15million.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 11:39 AM
link   
Actually there are 22-23 Ticonderogas still in service the rest have been decommissioned. And there are 50 Burkes in service out of a planned total of 62.

Link
Link



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Actually there are 22-23 Ticonderogas still in service the rest have been decommissioned. And there are 50 Burkes in service out of a planned total of 62.

Link
Link
That's missing the points people are making. It would be grossly over-estimating US anti-ballistic missile capabilities to credit each and every AEGIS equipped warship with having Standard SM-3 missiles. At this time they simply don't.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Planeman
…At this time they simply don't.


I know, as I stated earlier by 2006 there will only be 9 AEGIS ships equipped with the SM-3. I was just correcting the figures for the ships.

And Planeman where did you get your SM-3 figures from? Despite being a foot shorter and having half the diameter of the Arrow the SM-3 travels at 6,000 MPH which is roughly Mach 9, not 3.5.

Link


[edit on 23-6-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   
What can you guys tell me about the EKV Program?



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
And Planeman where did you get your SM-3 figures from? Despite being a foot shorter and having half the diameter of the Arrow the SM-3 travels at 6,000 MPH which is roughly Mach 9, not 3.5.

Link

I got the speed figure from the SM-2ER Block IV which provides the first and second stages of flight for the SM-3. To clarify, I'm looking at the practicalities of a Taep'o-dong ascent intercept which as we've realised cannot be at the extended ranges claimed of SM-3. The SM-2ER has a range of 240km, altitude of 33km (probably limited by guidence) and a maximum speed of Mach 3.5.

So we know that for about the first 240km or 33km in altitude, the SM-3 will have accelereated from zero to about Mach 3.5 (probably slower at steeper angles). The Arrow by comparrison gets to Mach 9 or thereabouts within 70km of range and/or 50km of altitude - see how much faster that really is?



EDIT. Another comparison: THAAD. The max speed quoted is 2,800m/sec. That's 6,300mph which in turn is Mach 9.5 over 40,000ft (Mach 8.2 at sea level, which it isn't going to be).

EDIT2: Is the SM-3 capable of premature seperation of stages 1 & 2 to enhance the intercept envelope against fast moving targets like Korean IRBMs in ascent?

[edit on 23-6-2006 by planeman]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Ah, I see so the SM-3 goes about Mach 3.5 for 240Km then Mach 9 for the remaining 260 Km? And I don’t know if it can prematurely jettison stages 1 and 2.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Ah, I see so the SM-3 goes about Mach 3.5 for 240Km then Mach 9 for the remaining 260 Km? And I don’t know if it can prematurely jettison stages 1 and 2.
Something like that. Although those speeds are the MAXIMUM, it has to accelerate up to those so the average speed is slower. And remember that it will travel in an arc not a directly straight line so the effective speed is slower still. That's why I've always been suspicious of the popularly quoted performance figures on places like designationsystems.com et al. Don't get me wrong, SM-3 looks like an excellent system for countering short range ballistic missiles like SCUD, but against IRBMs like North Korea's Taep'o-dong 1/2, it's likely to struggle. Just as THAAD, PAC-3, Aster, Arrow, SA-12, SA-20 et al would.

[edit on 23-6-2006 by planeman]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join