US Plans to Shoot Down ICBM

a reply to: shooterbrody

Which would be a short range system designed to blind incoming air to air missiles. And still isn't flying on a B-52. They have the Guardian LAIRCM system that can be bolted onto a KC-135 that's been tested, but "laser" doesn't mean that it can shoot down an ICBM.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: shooterbrody

They shot down a satellite in the 80s with a missile launched from an F-15. That's relatively easy. They're in a predictable orbit, on a non-moving path. They're not maneuvering or throwing out decoys. An ICBM is much much harder. It's a fraction of the size, moving faster, has decoys, and can move to avoid attempts to shoot it down.

That was educational. I had no idea that ICBM's deployed decoys and can maneuver evasively. Thanks!

a reply to: AnonyMason

How is a weapon designed to target electrical grids from a drone going to take down an inbound ICBM?

I guess that would depend on the range and accuracy of said weapon.
They showed this in 2012, has it diminished in capability as well?
If it can take down a building, surely it could take down an icbm?

And again if this is what they show us....what they have as an option usually is more impressive.
With 3 quick google searches there are news stories about laser,emp and traditional surface to air missiles available.

a reply to: shooterbrody

So a building is now the equivalent of a hardened missile silo designed to withstand the close impact of weapons and EMP bursts? It would have to be on the ground. Cruise missiles aren't designed to even see airborne targets, let alone target them. Even if they could, targeting something going 15,000+ mph with a subsonic platform would be worse than useless.

Just because they show us something 5 years ago doesn't mean that it's anywhere near operational now, or that it even went forward. For that matter, that they have more black world systems we don't know about. CHAMP will probably go ahead, but as of now it doesn't even have a body it can fit into that can survive getting through defenses. The missile body they used is an older, less survivable body.

Yes, there are multiple laser systems in development. None of them are part of the ballistic missile defense system. Just because it's a laser doesn't mean it's capable of doing everything, including taking down a ballistic missile. Same with a SAM. The anti missile SAM systems are designed against short and medium range missiles. Those are quite a bit different from an ICBM.

Why bother, 9/11 showed the playing field has changed. The North Koreans could magnetically attach a nuke to the hull of a cargo ship headed for the US from one of their subs and US wouldn't know it until the mushroom cloud appeared.

a reply to: glend

Been barking up this tree for a while. I'm glad you understand that they have that capability. Several of the most experienced DPRK military minds have said the exact same thing. If the Norks wanted to get a nuke to a target stateside they can do so without an ICBM.

a reply to: AnonyMason

No country can defend against every threat. There are ways to get any kind of weapon through. We chose to defend against the most common and most likely way of attack.

May 30, 2017

IT WORKED! AMERICA IS AWESOME!

www.foxnews.com...

""The U.S. military successfully shot down a mock nuclear warhead simulating the speed and range of a potential North Korean intercontinental ballistic missile, the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency said Tuesday.

In a statement, the agency said an unarmed rocket launched from the Marshall Islands in the Pacific Ocean was "destroyed" by a ground-based interceptor launched from Vandenberg Air Force Base in Southern California as it traveled outside Earth's atmosphere.""

We should share/sell this technology to Japan and other North Korea enemies. (Secretly of course)

originally posted by: glend
Why bother, 9/11 showed the playing field has changed. The North Koreans could magnetically attach a nuke to the hull of a cargo ship headed for the US from one of their subs and US wouldn't know it until the mushroom cloud appeared.

A good point, which begs the question of why North Korea is spending so much economic and political capital to develop ICBMs.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Agreed. It's just not as commonly recognized as some may think, especially where North Korea's capability is concerned.

Don't get me wrong, either. ICBM defense is imperative and has been since the nightmarish threat of nuclear war became a reality in the 1950's. But the conventional method of strapping a nuclear warhead to a missile and sending it isn't the only thing North Korea has going for them.

Ultimately if Pyongyang decided they wanted to send us a 'gift package' as they like to call it, it could come from a much less conventional delivery. That's why I often cite Joseph DeTrani and Col David S Maxwell (ret) so often. Both have commented on the fact that just because the DPRK has yet to achieve a missile capable of delivering a nuclear payload doesn't mean they can't cause serious damage without one. As worrisome as it may be for the United States I usually think first of Seoul. There is little standing in the way if Pyongyang flipped the switch against Seoul. My first concern is always for the US... but in this case my immediate concern is for the thousands of troops immediately south of the DMZ and the millions of civilians.

a reply to: carewemust

The GMD is pretty badass.

It's spelled out just like Zaphod said, though:

The $244 million test will not confirm that the U.S. is capable of defending itself against an intercontinental-range missile fired by North Korea. Pyongyang also is understood to be moving closer to the capability of putting a nuclear warhead on such a missile and could have developed decoys sophisticated enough to trick an interceptor into missing the real warhead.

We can kill SCUD(s). ICBM(s) are a different animal.

EDTA:

We should share/sell this technology to Japan and other North Korea enemies. (Secretly of course)

They have Aegis.

a reply to: AnonyMason

And are getting Aegis Ashore, as well as Patriot.

This was the first ICBM used in GBI tests. The others approached ICBM speed but weren't. Next year they're planning the first operational test with FTG-11, where they will fire multiple missiles from the Reagan Range and GBI kill vehicles will try to stop them.

a reply to: AnonyMason

One of the things that drives me around the bend at high speed is watching people go on about how North Korea, or Iran, or China, or this or that weapon system isn't really a threat to the US. North Korea may not be able to do major damage to the US mainland, but they could hurt us.

As for South Korea, our troops there are honestly nothing but a tripwire force, designed to buy time for a response to arrive from the US to back them up. By the time the Air Force could get more than heavy bombers there, they'd be hammered, and hammered hard. And it would be a hell of a lot worse by the time ground troops got there. There was a book written in the 90s, fiction obviously, but it took place in Korea when a war kicked off. By the time the 25th Infantry arrived from Hawaii, most of the light infantry in country were gone.

originally posted by: glend
Why bother, 9/11 showed the playing field has changed. The North Koreans could magnetically attach a nuke to the hull of a cargo ship headed for the US from one of their subs and US wouldn't know it until the mushroom cloud appeared.

you do realize that within territorial waters the navy does have radiation detectors on the sea floor in certain strategic locations right? not sneaking one into a major port on the bottom of a ship i think. too many things can go wrong too.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I couldn't say it any better, man. I've had this very same discussion on these boards with other members. The loss of life south of the DMZ would be catastrophic in scale. Or with Iran as an example, there's only about 70 US bases within reach of the Republic IAF. It's very easy to say "North Korea isn't a threat, Iran isn't a threat... etc", it's also very naive. Sure in any extended campaign, eventually we would grind them down and topple Pyongyang completely. But that would be a long and drawn out, bloody, bloody mess. It's a mistake to compare the DPRK to a campaign like Iraq, for example. This isn't some sandbox in the Middle East. This is a well organized nuclear capable state, with a significant military, some pretty tech savvy hackers, and a population that supports it's supreme leader at any expense to themselves... Human rights be damned.

It is true that even as of today, when the DPRK has executed it's umpteenth missile test, to most they can be easily written off as a psychotic dictatorial state that poses little threat to the US. The truth is they are the ninth nuclear power in the world. The DPRK poses a direct threat to Japan and South Korea and if they decided to do it, they could wreck some serious havoc in short order.

a reply to: AnonyMason

Thankyou for clarifying the limits of our capabilities and that we're already assisting allies in that region with the Aegis system. This thread has taught me a lot. The MSM explanation of what happened today is really dumbed down. This ATS thread should be required reading for them.

a reply to: carewemust

My pleasure, carewemust.

The US military has some awesome stuff. Some things just aren't reliably in reach, yet.

Of course the really interesting stuff is all black world. From my limited contact and understanding with other service guys some of that equipment could be right of a science fiction movie. Those types of things won't be seeing the light of day for a few more decades, though. It usually only comes up in conversation with a wink and a nod and a 'moving on, devil'.

the USA's 'demonstration' to intercept a ICBM is for show only...

the real action will be found among the 3 Carrier Task Forces now being stationed in the South China Sea areas

the USA will covertly position some sea-launched anti-missile-missiles within the 3 aircraft-carrier Groups...
the idea is to hit the ICBM on the way up...not after the warheads have been sent-on-their-way, separated from the launch vehicle and thus almost impossible to hit even with space-based weapons, which are in the area (by some miracle)


the USA would sure like a real-life test on this interceptor missiles that take out ICBM's at launch but before Apogee & release of the on-board MIRV's

An ICBM from NK going straight up, as has been previously done would be an international incident...
but a NK ICBM which has a trajectory over Japan Airspace (as has been previously done) would be a righteous interception & kill


AGAIN... the proposed intercept of a USA missile by a USA anti-missile-missile is for show & demonstration only...
but the USA might just be thinking of keeping NK grounded by shooting at every one of their test ICBMs they launch over S Korea or over Japan

a reply to: St Udio

We don't have a boost phase interceptor. We would love to have something like that, but one of the lessons learned from the ABL program was that the only was to do it is to be right on top of the launch area. If you're even a few hundred miles away, the intercept gets exponentially harder. More than that and it becomes impossible for anything but a directed energy weapon. Then you get into fun things like parking slow, non-stealthy, vulnerable 747 type platforms over hostile airspace.

a reply to: Zaphod58



Full circle, now. The lack of success with a genuine BPI is the reason we started building ABL systems in the first place.