Russia successfully Tests Missile-Defense Proof Weapons

By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV, Associated Press Writer

MOSCOW - Russia has successfully tested a hypersonic anti-Star Wars weapon capable of penetrating any prospective missile shield, a senior general said Thursday.




The prototype weapon proved it could maneuver so quickly as to make "any missile defense useless," Col.-Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, the first deputy chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, told a news conference.


He said that the prototype of a new hypersonic vehicle had proved its ability to maneuver while in orbit, thereby making it able to to dodge an enemy's missile shield.


"The flying vehicle changed both the altitude and direction of its flight," Baluyevsky said. "During the experiment conducted yesterday, we proved that it's possible to develop weapons that would make any missile defense useless."

more about it



that pretty much renders usa ABM defences useless, china will probably copy it also as it did copy the topol-m ICBM under the name DF-41

This is pretty cool. Good weapons

Tests only confirm one part a formula, when applied to the "it works" equation Sector....
Funny how you very often fail to mention such thing when posting your Russian-ware information.

"...that pretty much renders usa ABM defences useless..."

Theoretically and empirically.....NA'DA (no way, no).
Re-read what I mentioned above.

Russian-ware 'experts' have always attested, proclaimed, and voiced that anything and everything they build can surpass anything the US does. Anything new here Sector?
Reminds me of those "specs and stats" for the bolt-on Russian Plasma Generator or how the Berkut was the next thing to godliness when compared to the Raptor or the Joint Strike Fighter......right?

Seeing is believing. In such, the day that one of those "godly" Russian missiles lands in my living room and I see this for the one milli-second that I do, before the blinding white light takes place, then I'll believe that the Russians have developed a missile that "renders the US ABM defences useless". Till then Sector...the "hype" of this missile is like the "hype" that came with those other exportable Russian-ware items that WalMart will soon be dispensing.


Interesting that this article purposely fails to mention or take into account US's anti-ballistic missile satellites, and the known and not knowns of the ABM defence system....as par, how convenient.

BTW, was Putin there to witness the successful testing of this 'supposed' "US ABM defence" busting missile.....you know, like he was for those 2 failed submarine missile launches?



regards
seekerof

[Edited on 21-2-2004 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
BTW, was Putin there to witness the successful testing of this 'supposed' "US ABM defence" busting missile.....you know, like he was for those 2 failed submarine missile launches?

regards
seekerof

Damn Seeker, that was just plain beautiful!


Check out this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[Edited on 21-2-2004 by bios electric]

Originally posted by Seekerof

BTW, was Putin there to witness the successful testing of this 'supposed' "US ABM defence" busting missile.....you know, like he was for those 2 failed submarine missile launches?

Hey, why did you post what I was thinking to post ? It's unfair !!!

Anyway, when you can't really launch a nuclear strike but your opponent can do it, it's better to have a very good ABM system. I guess that's why they want to have this ABM system.

P.S : SectorGaza, it's you in your avatar ?

Seekerof, wow.... That was amazing..

This is all pretty funny, considering that the missile shield has actually been in place for almost 20 years, and is constantly being improved...

Not to mention, I still fail to see how it defeats a laser moving at the speed of light.... Nor are lasers the only component of the defense...

This actually talks about the Patriot missile defence system that Israel bought from the US in the Gulf War. The 100% kill ratio claimed later turned out to be 25%.

www.wsws.org...

The best defence against a missile is having it not launch at all. Even if you 'intercept' a nuke in mid-air, people are still going to die and suffer.

[Edited on 27-2-2004 by quintar]

The best defence against a missile is having it not launch at all. Even if you 'intercept' a nuke in mid-air, people are still going to die and suffer.

Not true, if you destroy a nuke (ICBM) while in space, no trouble...even if it was armed...

Though, multiples would leave a hazardous haze for a bit...but only if they were armed (which they currently aren't programmed to do until they get closer to the target, for safety reasons....)

And I'm not talking about Patriots.....

The ABL was made to destroy missles over the countys silos. So the aftermath would be on the person launching.

cant the americans use heat seekers because wouldnt that missle release tons of heat due to its exhaust or whatever you call the place the fire comesout

Originally posted by CookieMonster000
cant the americans use heat seekers because wouldnt that missle release tons of heat due to its exhaust or whatever you call the place the fire comesout

The chances of getting a hit with the object manuevering all the way down are not very good.

I don't see how they could conclude this when the defense system isn't even complete nor do they know it's full capabilities.

they could probably intercept it with a HUGE heat seeker...but then again it might just hit a bird and kaboom...or an airplane or w/e

well they could send the jets out before it even comes falling down

It's easy to make a missile which will overcome a missile defense.

It's hard to make a missile which will overcome a missile defense, AND STILL BE HIGHLY ACCURATE.

The first you can do almost at no cost by having a particularly odd aerodynamics to induce chaotic fluctuations in your descent. In fact, that is how Saddam's SCUDs were not shot down that well by the Patriot. Iraq had attempted to retrofit the SCUDs with additional fuel so they could have a longer range. As a result their guidance and aerodynamics were all screwed up.

Basically the Patriot could not deal with such a poorly made missile; it assumed that it would have to defend against at least 1960's USSR technology. Iraq's SCUDs escaped interception by accident by having such poor guidance. In fact, some of them broke up in flight spontaneously; they were originally believed to be Patriot hits.
(Patriot PAC-2 and PAC-3 systems are alot better now).

Similarly an active retrorocket can do the same thing in space to give the warhead a random velocity vector at random times. Still, that makes it much more difficult to be really highly accurate the way the most modern US warheads are. Good guidance means integrating and assimilating data on a quiet ballistic trajectory and accurately measuring the stars and updating your position.

It's actually quite amazing the technology needed to do that. The missiles have maps of the gravitational variations due to the particular shape of the earth, the continents, density variations inside the Earth due to magma flows, the oceans, and maybe even the differential gravity due to the particular momentary shape of the oceans due to tides. And of course calculations including special and general relativity.

Basically if you want a 5 megaton city buster retaliatory "we're taking you with us" warhead, yeah, you can make one which will get through somewhere.

If you want a warhead which is able to take out a highly hardened missile silo or command post (yes, they can survive pretty big nukes upto a couple hundred feet away from ground zero!) evading a missile defense actively is much harder.

On the other hand it's pretty easy for the Russians to do it anyway against the US non-system. Launch more of them, or, launch sub-based ballistic or cruise missiles.

The US won't have any interceptors which can pick up a missile coming say in the direction of the gulf of Mexico.

I think that was basically a make-work program for some Russian military contractors to get some political points.

not strategically important. Unless they are really obnoxious and sell the system to the North Koreans or Iranians.

USE HEAT SEEKERS thats my slogan

A: "He said that the prototype of a new hypersonic vehicle had proved its ability to maneuver while in orbit"
-Yahoo.com

B: "hypersonic anti-Star Wars, The experiment conducted by us must not be interpreted as a warning to the Americans not to build their missile defense because we designed this thing"
-Yahoo.com

Example A., In order to get by the ABL(Air Borne Laser), it needs to get into "Orbit" Which I recall, Outsite earths boundrary. The ABL destroys the missle right after launch Before it could get into orbit. Which makes the Star wars project false. The star wars was going to "Kill" the missle in orbit.

Example B., Hypersonic, 5 times speed of sound or higher, Like many Russian times, Russia falsly proved strenghts has been more in the bucket then one can have. So, in order of a "infered" false experiment, the quote directly states "not to build their missile defense because we designed this thing." Shows that the Russians are disagreeing with the Solid state laser, but don't directly state it. Which in all concludes, not wanting US to build it, maby because they do not have the tech. But maby they do. So, heatseekers will not work unless its hypersonic.



[Edited on 27-2-2004 by Laxpla]

oo russia give it a rest, money owns the world and the USA simply has more of it. and i really dont see why EMPs would not be effective against anytype of missle are they all not electronically guided? and yah im sure the usa has a few tricks up their sleeve ne ways

Found this article of interest and somewhat related to what has been mentioned earlier/previously in this thread:

"Putin Lashes Out at Military Shortcomings"
story.news.yahoo.com.../ap/20040301/ap_on_re_eu/russia_military_exercises




regards
seekerof

Not to mention, I still fail to see how it defeats a laser moving at the speed of light....

Nor are lasers the only component of the defense...

I agree - If there are lasers in space, these missles will be shot down. The basis of the missle defense plan is to terminate as many of the missles as possable as quickly as possable IE as soon as it is launched....so as was said

Example A., In order to get by the ABL(Air Borne Laser), it needs to get into "Orbit" Which I recall, Outsite earths boundrary. The ABL destroys the missle right after launch Before it could get into orbit.