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.
Sources?
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.
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
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.
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.
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]
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]
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%2Fkil01094.xml GMD could be upgraded with this capability.
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.findarticles.com...
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...
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.
Look up the Russian A 135 system and my findarticle links i posted they also have an ABM.
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]
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...
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.
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.
Not intended but has the capability to intercept ICBMs Please read the Avaitionnow THAAD links.
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...
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.