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: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Planeman on second thought I’m assuming it can, whoever designed the missile must have taken into account that it’s not always going to engage a missile at the outer limits of its range. And it would have to jettison the other two stages even when targeting a missile that’s 150 KM away so I’m thinking they can work something out.




posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Planeman on second thought I’m assuming it can, whoever designed the missile must have taken into account that it’s not always going to engage a missile at the outer limits of its range. And it would have to jettison the other two stages even when targeting a missile that’s 150 KM away so I’m thinking they can work something out.
Sources?



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   
No sources, just my thoughts.


EDIT:
Hey Planeman I found this link comparing the SM-2IV and SM-3 and it also goes into detail about some earlier tests of the SM-3 (2002). See what you make of it.

Link PDF


[edit on 23-6-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
No sources, just my thoughts.


EDIT:
Hey Planeman I found this link comparing the SM-2IV and SM-3 and it also goes into detail about some earlier tests of the SM-3 (2002). See what you make of it.

Link PDF


Thanks for the link, that confirms what I (and Ignorant Ape) have been trying to explain. The key comment:


We can infer that stage 4 cannot seperate much below 100km altitude - so it cannot get to its maximum velocity until over 100km altitude - probably at around 140km if max alt is 160km?). That knocks your suggestion of early-jettison on the head.

The second part of the comment, noting how it is only be used for mid-course intercepts, confirms our previous suppositions on its limitations against certain types of target. The target must "top out" (mid-course phase) at around 160km to be within SM-3's engagement envelope - Taep'o-dong 1/2 top-out at around 300km and 400km+ respectively.

The rest of the document highlights other potential shortcomings, such as ballistic missiles which do not reach 100km altitude and radar weaknesses. All food for thought.

I hate to say it dude, but it looks like you've been inclined to OVER-RATE US ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE SYSTEMS as per the thread's title.


I knew there was a point to this thread.






[edit on 23-6-2006 by planeman]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Planeman
I hate to say it dude, but it looks like you've been inclined to OVER-RATE US ANTI-BALLISTIC MISSILE SYSTEMS as per the thread's title.


Say what you want, I’m still not convinced that AEGIS ships in the right position couldn’t shoot down a Taep'o-dong 2 in the boost/ascent phase. Kind of makes me want to see a live demonstration to see what will happen.



WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Air Force general responsible for building a U.S. anti-ballistic missile shield on Friday voiced high confidence it could shoot down any U.S.-bound missile from North Korea, despite critics' doubts.

"From what I've seen from our testing from the last several years ... and what I know about the system and its capabilities, I'm very confident," Lt. Gen. Henry "Trey" Obering told reporters after a speech to a seminar.


So, Planeman I suppose this wont change your mind?


[edit on 23-6-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by LAES YVAN

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]


I'm not saying that the other Aegis ships can't shoot an SM-2. I'm saying that there are only two types of missiles that have been used to shoot down an incoming missile from an Aegis ship. A MODIFIED SM-2 that has three stages, or the SM-3. Both are ONLY in use by the USN, and only in limited numbers. And being an Aegis doesn't mean jack as far as tracking an incoming missile. They have to have the new software for the radar to track the missile, due to the speed and decoys, and other aspects of an ICBM.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Say what you want, I’m still not convinced that AEGIS ships in the right position couldn’t shoot down a Taep'o-dong 2 in the boost/ascent phase. Kind of makes me want to see a live demonstration to see what will happen.

[edit on 23-6-2006 by WestPoint23]


The engagement envelope is too small. Like Planeman said. The SM-3 will be at a severe disadvantage, because the Tai-Dong will launch, the ship will have to see it, ID it, launch, the missile will have to acclerate to a speed FASTER than the ICBM to catch it, and have enough fuel to sustain that speed long enough to reach it. The slowest portion of the equation is the human factor.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 04:47 PM
link   
The missile defense system as it stands now is indeed overrated. It has never been through the kinds of rigorous and "beyond the preconcieved notions" testing required to be said it is ready for trouble.

Also, note that the missile defense program has been an absolute fraud, where the military-industrial-Congressional complex has forced the Pentagon to purchase systems well before R&D has been completed in any fashion. The whole thing is just the same old ploy to make the rich and powerful even more rich and powerful. If the missile defense system was scrubbed today, you'd see too many people losing jobs. And the military-industrial-Congressional complex could not stand for that.



posted on Jun, 24 2006 @ 08:52 PM
link   
Planeman the forst post is full of wrong statements. THAAD can intercept ICBM's no problem. Some links my be long so p[aste them in your adress bar.

HUNTSVILLE, Ala. - U.S. missile defense developers have discovered that the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system, designed to destroy short- and medium-range ballistic missiles in their final stages of flight, will also be capable of shooting down longer-range targets.

At the seventh annual space and missile defense conference here, Army Col. Charles Driessnack, THAAD's program manager, said in a speech late Aug. 18 and at a press briefing Aug. 19 that recent tests of the system's Raytheon-built radar have shown that THAAD will have a "residual" capability against intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

"We weren't planning to have the ICBM capability," but the radar is "outperforming what we thought it was supposed to do," Driessnack said.


www.aviationnow.com... y.jsp%3Fview%3Dstory%26id%3Dnews%2Ftha08204.xml


Lockheed Martin Corp.'s winning design for the U.S. Miniature Kill Vehicle (MKVs) program envisions placing as many as "several dozen" small kill vehicles atop a single interceptor missile, a company official said Jan. 8.

Plans call for each MKV to be about 6 to 8 inches in diameter and 10 inches long, or roughly the size of a coffee can, said Doug Graham, vice president of Lockheed Martin Space Systems. By contrast, the Raytheon exo-atmospheric kill vehicle (EKV) now used by the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system is about 24 inches in diameter and 55 inches long.
www.aviationnow.com... y.jsp%3Fview%3Dstory%26id%3Dnews%2Fkil01094.xml GMD could be upgraded with this capability.

the speed of the interceptor doesnt always matter it's the radar.
What you believe is below.

A top U.S. intelligence official and arms-control analyst, interviewed by Insight on the condition that his name be withheld, vigorously rejects the Russian claims. In a detailed rebuttal of Lee's analysis, he says the United States has carried out a technical analysis of the SA-10 and SA-12 systems and concludes they simply were not fast enough to intercept incoming ICBMs. The Soviets might have wanted to integrate the interceptors into a national missile-defense network, he says, but never demonstrated the capability. Even if such a network had been set up, he argues, the interceptors were just too slow to be effective against ICBMs.
www.findarticles.com...

the truth is below.You can do this.

But, according to the new Russian source material, Soviet designers worked around the slow speed of the interceptors by passing target data to them from huge battle-management radars positioned thousands of kilometers away. That gave them enough warning to launch the interceptors in time to kill the incoming warheads. The Russians also made clear that the main ABM system protecting Moscow was just as dependent as the SAMs/ ABMs on receiving target-tracking data from distant battle-management radars.

The Moscow-system missiles, the SA-5 and SA-10/12, were tipped with small nuclear warheads so they didn't require the incredible bullet-hitting-bullet complexity of the U.S. systems developed during the Clinton years. U.S. spy satellites repeatedly identified tactical nuclear-warhead storage sites at the interceptor bases spread across the Soviet empire.
www.findarticles.com...
Although the soviet idea wasn't exactly great since the huge radars needed for naviagtion would be destroyed in a decapitation strike.THAAD takes care of this by having it's own radar which can do this.

[edit on 24-6-2006 by urmomma158]

[edit on 24-6-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by skippytjc


The USA’s anti ballistic shield is the best on the entire planet. FACT. Why? Because it’s the only one on the entire planet. And until there are others, keep your political slants to yourself.



[edit on 21-6-2006 by skippytjc]
Look up the Russian A 135 system and my findarticle links i posted they also have an ABM.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 01:21 PM
link   
I think where the US want to be in terms of missle defence is to be able to intercept the missle while its in ascent stage. Meaning defending america by blowing up the missle over the missles origin.

The US isn't going to try to cover all of it's land mass it plans to cover the expected enemy states. Basically NK Mid EAST possibly Venezuela. lol



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 02:24 PM
link   
urmomma158, your sources are inconsistant, even contradictory - if the SA-10/20 is too slow then THAAD is too etc. It's all a bit wooley.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 02:59 PM
link   
I will admit that I did not read beyond the first page but:.......

You realize that THAAD (Theater High-Altitude Area Defense) is simply and upper tier 'Theatre" ABM systeam no? It is not nor has it ever been intended for ICBM / Continental defence?

The interceptors at vandenberg and Ft. Greely are totaly different animals (The link below is an excellent overview of all the US's ABM programs



The Ground-Based Interceptor, comprised of a booster
vehicle and an exoatmospheric kill vehicle, will be launched
into space based on threat identification and command
authority. The Booster will fly to a projected intercept point and
release the exoatmospheric kill vehicle, which uses on-board
sensors, with assistance from ground-based assets, to acquire
www.mda.mil...



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by planeman
urmomma158, your sources are inconsistant, even contradictory - if the SA-10/20 is too slow then THAAD is too etc. It's all a bit wooley.
Why don't you read properly. On page 7 an expert ignorantly stated the interceptor speed is too slow to intercept AN icbm, but on page 8 that view is contradicted . Next time please read carefully and pay attention to the page number. The interceptor can be slower than the target if you have a good enough radar which I pointed out in my sources.

[edit on 25-6-2006 by urmomma158]



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
I will admit that I did not read beyond the first page but:.......

You realize that THAAD (Theater High-Altitude Area Defense) is simply and upper tier 'Theatre" ABM systeam no? It is not nor has it ever been intended for ICBM / Continental defence?

The interceptors at vandenberg and Ft. Greely are totaly different animals (The link below is an excellent overview of all the US's ABM programs



The Ground-Based Interceptor, comprised of a booster
vehicle and an exoatmospheric kill vehicle, will be launched
into space based on threat identification and command
authority. The Booster will fly to a projected intercept point and
release the exoatmospheric kill vehicle, which uses on-board
sensors, with assistance from ground-based assets, to acquire
www.mda.mil...


Not intended but has the capability to intercept ICBMs Please read the Avaitionnow THAAD links.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 10:06 PM
link   
Missile defense is stupid. It's a mil-indust-complex fear-based techno-dream. It's only valid if you look at it as a protective measure which preserves a small number of cities. Yes, if a particular state (say Colorado for example) wanted to invest enough money, they could concievably protect their airspace and explode enemy nukes above them. They could build their own rockets or use their own warheads to simply effect an atmospheric cluster of explosions to cook any warheads (basically the only way to stop them).

Anyway, to trust some FEMA-like theoretical system that'll cost billions of dollars? That's no comfort. Better to simply agree to full transparency of nuclear technology. Eventually we must eliminate these weapons which will doom us.

Let's say you design the F4 phantom and you put it up in the air with a rear-directed countermeasure. The decoys shoot out and misdirect (confuse) the sensors of any incoming rocket. Similarly, "THE ENEMY" could build a final stage of their ICBM which has A: chaff/decoys, B: individually targeted (robotic) warheads, etc.

NFL ANALOGY: You know how no defensive back can stop Barry Sanders? What I am saying is that it's much easier to build a robotic Barry Sanders than to create a robotic defensive back that can stop him. WHY? Because robot Barry (the incoming ICBM) is running downhill at 500 (potentially) MPH. How do you stop him? ANSWER: You cant. People will die.

It's like trying to shoot a bullet with a bullet. And if you have robots duking it out above the city, are you going to feel safe? ANSWER: No.

Think about that TV show, battlebots. Now imagine that you and your family are naked, sitting in the middle of the arena. Tied to the floor, while the battlebots attempt to destroy each other. Basically, that's what people are proposing with this idiotic reliance upon nuclear weapons or some kind of system to shoot them out of the air. It's sheer madness and our grandchildren have THE RIGHT TO LOATHE US for perpetuating it.


[edit on 25-6-2006 by smallpeeps]



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 11:40 PM
link   
what I don't understand about anti-missile defense is that-the adversary could always just fire a nuke-cruise missile from a submarine that creeps up a few hundred kiometers from shore..in you have anti-missile sites, then they hit those with the cruse nukes, leaving the entire territory undefended,they can then launch the ICBMs..I mean, if one of those countries is hell-bent on a nuclear attack, theres nothing that can really stop it.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by jajabinks
what I don't understand about anti-missile defense is that-the adversary could always just fire a nuke-cruise missile from a submarine that creeps up a few hundred kiometers from shore..in you have anti-missile sites, then they hit those with the cruse nukes, leaving the entire territory undefended,they can then launch the ICBMs..I mean, if one of those countries is hell-bent on a nuclear attack, theres nothing that can really stop it.

That is an extremely credible hypothosis.



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   
From a US standpoint you have to define the adversary; if you’re referring to someone like Russia or China (in the coming years) then they don’t need to take out our ABM sites their nukes will get through either way. Now if the adversary is North Korea or Iran (countries which are the main focus of the ABM community) then your scenario is just not realistic and in some cases even possible. BTW cruise missiles can be detected and destroyed much easier then incoming MIRV’s can.

[edit on 26-6-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
^^^^^Unless of course you use an ACM 129 or something similar.

[edit on 26-6-2006 by urmomma158]




top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join