NationStates Jolt Archive

http://channels.netscape.com/news/story.jsp?id=2005111716057000000001&dt=20051117160500&w=AFP&coview=

The ground-based interceptor has had mixed results, but the sea-based interceptor appears to be working.

Later this year, the Airborne Laser will be operational.

And they said it couldn't be done...

And you're scared of short- and medium ranged missiles because...?

The question is whether it could take down ICBMs - and what the result of a successful test would mean as far as new missile developments are concerned (ie militarisation of space).

And you're scared of short- and medium ranged missiles because...?

The question is whether it could take down ICBMs - and what the result of a successful test would mean as far as new missile developments are concerned (ie militarisation of space).

The sea based version is meant for mid-course intercept of missiles - that is, it was meant to intercept missiles launched from China or North Korea, with an intercept occurring over the mid-Pacific.

It can do short and medium range missile intercepts, but it is really meant for mid-course intercept of ICBMs headed for the West Coast.

It also, unlike the ground based version, is an all-in-one package. The ship carries the radar, the fire control, and the missiles. The ground based relies on an extensive network of radars across the Pacific, and the fire control is located in Alaska.

I think that's why it was easier to get a working sea-based model. Easier integration.

This is only TRIALS.

In the mission statement for the new CG(X) (the partner of the DD(X) destroyer), it states that it will carry a missile armament capable of intercepting and downing ICBM's in space. This is only working out the technology first.

What i'd like to see if them, after building a new SSBN, use the Ohio Class as missle platforms for this sort of thing.

We are concerned with defending against short and medium range missiles for the following three reasons:

Iran, China, and North Korea.

Done.

Also, for sea based issues, throw in India and Pakistan. Why is this even a question?

I'll believe it when it shoots down an ICBM in combat conditions.

"Successful" as in it was capable of hitting a projectile with a known trajectory and speed?

Okay, so now assume that conventional ICBMs could be shot down by this system (which is probably worth a couple of tax cuts).

This simply means that firms and militaries are gonna develop ICBMs that fly a little higher still. And then you have guns flying about in space - which is against the rules.

It's an inherently stupid idea to think you can be secure yourself while dishing out to the rest of the world. And besides...I thought terrorists were the evildoers this time 'round.

We're trying to pwn the Chinese here, not Osama.

Okay, so now assume that conventional ICBMs could be shot down by this system (which is probably worth a couple of tax cuts).

This simply means that firms and militaries are gonna develop ICBMs that fly a little higher still. And then you have guns flying about in space - which is against the rules.

It's an inherently stupid idea to think you can be secure yourself while dishing out to the rest of the world. And besides...I thought terrorists were the evildoers this time 'round.

No, it's far cheaper to put inflatable decoys on the ICBM instead of flying it higher - flying higher requires a lot more investment.

Unfortunately, they seem to have also discovered how to detect the difference between an inflatable decoy warhead and the real warhead (through a satellite system called SBIRS-Low).

It's not against the rules as long as they are not orbital - and these most certainly are not.

Building a defense against North Korean missiles is practical - defense against several thousand Chinese ICBMs is probably not.

Building a defense against North Korean missiles is practical - defense against several thousand Chinese ICBMs is probably not.
I would think you might wanna wait until the DPRK actually has
a) a nuke
b) a missile which can reach the US
c) a missile which can reach the US carrying a nuke

If I was the North Koreans, I'd be trying to make the bomb as small as possible, and then use their pretty capable and experienced secret service to smuggle it into somewhere to detonate it. Difficult, but probably still easier than an ICBM...and you won't have immediate and overwhelming retaliation until guilt is established.

I would think you might wanna wait until the DPRK actually has
a) a nuke
b) a missile which can reach the US
c) a missile which can reach the US carrying a nuke

If I was the North Koreans, I'd be trying to make the bomb as small as possible, and then use their pretty capable and experienced secret service to smuggle it into somewhere to detonate it. Difficult, but probably still easier than an ICBM...and you won't have immediate and overwhelming retaliation until guilt is established.

Considering that work on these missiles started in 1991, and they are only successful now, how long do you think it would take to develop and field a system if we waited for North Korea to get all those things together (say, next year, since we know they already have a nuke (they admit it) and we know they have an ICBM capable of reaching Seattle, but we don't know if they've tested them together.

So, we wait until next year to do any design or experiments. Let's see 2005-1991 = 14 years.

So, if we had waited until you say we should, and let's say the North Koreans get their act together next year, we should have about 14 years after that before we can field any defense.

What a great idea! And completely stupid, too!

North Korea also admits to being the most powerful, advanced, free, and rich nation on Earth.

What a great idea! And completely stupid, too!
You're aware what kind of missile the DPRK fields at the moment (link (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/missile/td-2.htm))? They'd be lucky if they didn't miss the States completely.

And besides, the goal of the North Korean Junta is not to destroy the US, it is to stay in power. To get your country squashed in the ensuing war is probably not the way to do it.

Meh...American propaganda.

Or they really have reached the point where they can hit an empty metal tube which they fired, and whose velocity, trajectory, etc. they are fully aware of, with what amounts to a big automated cannon.

Under those circumstances I could design a system that would do the same thing with Physics 20 math. Pitiful.

On another note, can it intercept a dirty bomb that's been smuggled into downtown LA or some similar thing?

"Successful" as in it was capable of hitting a projectile with a known trajectory and speed?

Maybe the people attacking you will be nice to send you that info - glasnost and all!

Meh...American propaganda.

Or they really have reached the point where they can hit an empty metal tube which they fired, and whose velocity, trajectory, etc. they are fully aware of, with what amounts to a big automated cannon.

Under those circumstances I could design a system that would do the same thing with Physics 20 math. Pitiful.

On another note, can it intercept a dirty bomb that's been smuggled into downtown LA or some similar thing?
Nice load of "Number II" from Number III

Meh...American propaganda.

Or they really have reached the point where they can hit an empty metal tube which they fired, and whose velocity, trajectory, etc. they are fully aware of, with what amounts to a big automated cannon.

Under those circumstances I could design a system that would do the same thing with Physics 20 math. Pitiful.

On another note, can it intercept a dirty bomb that's been smuggled into downtown LA or some similar thing?

If you're so smart, let's see you do it.

BTW, the trajectory is not as simple as you think. Nor is the intercept problem.

And the targets in some of the tests include decoys, and they all maneuver.

Back in the 1980s, many notable scientists said that such an intercept, based on collision alone (and not on an explosive warhead) would be impossible to achieve.

Do you know that much more?

Maybe the people attacking you will be nice to send you that info - glasnost and all!

You're mixing up the problems between the sea based and land based missiles - which are different missiles and different radar and fire control.

The ground based system so far has been tested with missiles where the vectors are known.

The sea based system acquires that information on its own, with a radar that has already been in service since the early 1990s.

So go back and guess again...

Maybe the people attacking you will be nice to send you that info - glasnost and all!
Or we could take all the info we gained over the years at NASA telling us what the speed and trajectory of an object must be in order to break through the atmosphere without burning up or skipping off and flying off into space?

Of course, we all know how dumb rocket scientists are. :rolleyes:

Do you know that much more?
But a combat situation is something different. There are news reports of some sort of North Korean Missile Wreck in Alaska...yet no one apparently realised it had been fired.

So you get the info that a missile is on its way...it's flying at enormous speeds, you don't know the target and now you have to aim and shoot it down? And consider that it might drop decoys?

Even if this test was successful, that means little as far as the Program really having a chance of being a success any time soon.

You're mixing up the problems between the sea based and land based missiles - which are different missiles and different radar and fire control.

The ground based system so far has been tested with missiles where the vectors are known.

The sea based system acquires that information on its own, with a radar that has already been in service since the early 1990s.

So go back and guess again...

Maybe the people attacking you will be nice to not develop anti-anti measures? Ah, the nice comfort of an arms race...

You're aware what kind of missile the DPRK fields at the moment (link (http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/missile/td-2.htm))? They'd be lucky if they didn't miss the States completely.

And besides, the goal of the North Korean Junta is not to destroy the US, it is to stay in power. To get your country squashed in the ensuing war is probably not the way to do it.
So are you saying it doesn't matter if they shoot a nuclear missile at us, as long as they can't aim it at a specific target? Missile at a city = BAD, but missile in the surrounding countryside = No biggy?

Maybe the people attacking you will be nice to not develop anti-anti measures? Ah, the nice comfort of an arms race...
anti-anti measures?

Can you dumb down the technical talk? We aren't all as saavy with scientific terms.

Missile at a city = BAD, but missile in the surrounding countryside = No biggy?
Relatively speaking, yes.

But look at the range...how wide do you think the Pacific is?

But a combat situation is something different. There are news reports of some sort of North Korean Missile Wreck in Alaska...yet no one apparently realised it had been fired.

So you get the info that a missile is on its way...it's flying at enormous speeds, you don't know the target and now you have to aim and shoot it down? And consider that it might drop decoys?

Even if this test was successful, that means little as far as the Program really having a chance of being a success any time soon.
Good point. If it can't be done in 6 weeks, it probably isn't worth working towards. :rolleyes:

Maybe the people attacking you will be nice to not develop anti-anti measures? Ah, the nice comfort of an arms race...
They have already been testing the ideas that an enemy might use for counter measures.

As an example, the problem of inflatable decoys.

Put ten balloons in with the warhead. As soon as the missile leaves the atmosphere, release and inflate the decoys along with the warhead.

You have 11 warhead shaped objects.

The US developed SBIRS-Low in order to detect the difference by examining the warheads from orbit in the infrared. Even if you try to heat the balloons to try and match the warhead temperature, the emissivity is different - and the SBIRS can tell the difference and relay that to the intercept missile in flight.

Way ahead of you.

Relatively speaking, yes.

But look at the range...how wide do you think the Pacific is?
The rocket that they have can hit the west coast. And even though I'm no big fan of California, they are still Americans, even one of them getting killed is not acceptable.

Death of my citizens is NOT relative.

anti-anti measures?

Can you dumb down the technical talk? We aren't all as saavy with scientific terms.

Perhaps you mean "savvy?" We aren't all dyslexics, you know, but that doesn't mean that overly technical terms need be used to convey a message.

Way ahead of you.

Exactly the point. As soon as you started developing that, "they" probably started developing something else, the "anti-anti-anti-anti." Hence the term "race." :p

Perhaps you mean "savvy?" We aren't all dyslexics, you know, but that doesn't mean that overly technical terms need be used to convey a message.
Overly technical terms aren't needed, but when we're discussing ballistic missiles, and the satellite targeted interception of them, it kinda helps when you don't sound like Homer Simpson.

Overly technical terms aren't needed, but when were discussing ballistic missiles, and the satellite targeted interception of them, it kinda helps when you don't sound like Homer Simpson.

Gee whiz, me surely is dumb for using simple term. Me forget this be NASA/rocket science forum and not NS General. :rolleyes:

Exactly the point. As soon as you started developing that, "they" probably started developing something else. Hence the term "race."

Who has more money, experience, scientists, and time?

I think we win. We can already discern decoys. The number of possible vectors out of North Korea is quite limited. If a missile wreck fell in Alaska, that was back when there was no radar in place aimed in that direction.

The sea based system can acquire a target on its own, and use the SBIRS to discern decoys. The intercept warhead is a maneuvering warhead - not on a simple ballistic trajectory.

We also took multiple engineering paths - one ground based system, one sea based system , the PAC-3 short range defense, and the Airborne Laser.

It looks like three of these will be fully operational. The PAC-3 was successful in combat conditions against ripple-fired missiles during the last Iraqi invasion.

Good point. If it can't be done in 6 weeks, it probably isn't worth working towards. :rolleyes:
Didn't say that...

The rocket that they have can hit the west coast.
I assume you're talking about the TaePo Dong 3...which isn't expected to be ready until 2010 or so.
And even then, I still maintain that firing nukes at the US isn't in the interest of the North Korean Regime - if anything they would use them to deter invasions by threatening attacks on South Korea, Japan or US Forces in either.

Death of my citizens is NOT relative.
Well, that's an old game...if you have the choice of one person, or ten people getting killed, which do you choose?

Gee whiz, me surely is dumb for using simple term. Me forget this be NASA forum and not NS General.
Is she always like this, or am I just some kind of magnet for it?

if anything they would use them to deter invasions by threatening attacks on South Korea, Japan or US Forces in either.

The PAC-3 can defend South Korea and Japan against ripple-fired missiles from North Korea.

It was successful against ripple-fired missiles in our last invasion of Iraq.

It apparently identifies targets, engages them, determines if a miss is going to occur, and fires another missile on a corrective path with no human intervention.

Who has more money, experience, scientists, and time?

I don't know. China, and even India, with its growing economy, fast technical advances and military clout probably won't just stand by and see itself and its stockpile become impotent.

I think we win. We can already discern decoys. The number of possible vectors out of North Korea is quite limited. If a missile wreck fell in Alaska, that was back when there was no radar in place aimed in that direction.

The sea based system can acquire a target on its own, and use the SBIRS to discern decoys. The intercept warhead is a maneuvering warhead - not on a simple ballistic trajectory.

We also took multiple engineering paths - one ground based system, one sea based system , the PAC-3 short range defense, and the Airborne Laser.

It looks like three of these will be fully operational. The PAC-3 was successful in combat conditions against ripple-fired missiles during the last Iraqi invasion.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of that is not certain, is it? This is still a pipe dream.

Didn't say that...


I assume you're talking about the TaePo Dong 3...which isn't expected to be ready until 2010 or so.
And even then, I still maintain that firing nukes at the US isn't in the interest of the North Korean Regime - if anything they would use them to deter invasions by threatening attacks on South Korea, Japan or US Forces in either.


Well, that's an old game...if you have the choice of one person, or ten people getting killed, which do you choose?
I'd give my life trying my best to stop both. It's called "morals". I'd die before I'd choose to take part in the intentional killing of any innocent person.

The PAC-3 can defend South Korea and Japan against ripple-fired missiles from North Korea.
Which only leaves tactical nuclear artillery shells...the Chinese are apparently quite proficient with those.

I'd give my life trying my best to stop both. It's called "morals". I'd die before I'd choose to take part in the intentional killing of any innocent person.

And how does a defensive missile that contains no explosives and can kill only other missiles violate any of that?

How would it intentionally kill any person?

Certainly more moral than building a nuclear deterrent, and threatening people with nuking them.

Is she always like this, or am I just some kind of magnet for it?

I am a he, and I do tend to respond to stupid, irrelevant comments with equally stupid comments. I find it to be a nice retribution.

I'd give my life trying my best to stop both. It's called "morals". I'd die before I'd choose to take part in the intentional killing of any innocent person.
That's good to know. I'm the same...but I really have my doubts about what these systems are going to achieve.
They effectively undermine the disarmament process, they make other nations angry, they cost huge amounts of money, and they don't address the fact that if the US is gonna be nuked any time soon, it'll be by Terrorism, not Missiles.

I am a he, and I do tend to respond to stupid, irrelevant comments with equally stupid comments. I find it to be a nice retribution.
Sorry, dude. I don't mean any disrespect, but Fass seemed effeminate to me, but who am I to talk? I'm named after ants. :D

I apologize for the comment. My bad.

The PAC-3 was successful in combat conditions against ripple-fired missiles during the last Iraqi invasion.
Hey looky, somebody still believes the PAC-3 worked int eh iraqi invasion.

you are of course aware that there were no 'confirmed' successes, they only assumed the missile worked because it fired at what looked like a radar contact and some even detonated! there was very little or no wreckage found except for that from a detonated PAC-3 missile, there's nothing that can be viewed even remotely as conclusive proof that Iraqi missiles were even fired.

Sorry, dude. I don't mean any disrespect, but Fass seemed effeminate to me, but who am I to talk? I'm named after ants. :D

No to worry. I don't find femininity degrading.

I apologize for the comment. My bad.

No biggie. It's par for the course in General. :)

Hey looky, somebody still believes the PAC-3 worked int eh iraqi invasion.

you are of course aware that there were no 'confirmed' successes, they only assumed the missile worked because it fired at what looked like a radar contact and some even detonated! there was very little or no wreckage found except for that from a detonated PAC-3 missile, there's nothing that can be viewed even remotely as conclusive proof that Iraqi missiles were even fired.
Not what I hear. (http://www.menewsline.com/stories/2004/july/07_16_3.html)

No to worry. I don't find femininity degrading.



No biggie. It's par for the course in General. :)
Niether do I. I'd be dead or in jail if I hadn't gotten married! She keeps my dumbness in check. ;)

She keeps my dumbness in check. ;)

And my boyfriends tend to exacerbate mine... oh, well! :p

In all seriousness, Deep Kimchi, where can we get info on just how rigged this test was. I mean rigged in the sense of how difficult a test it was in comparison to an actual situation, what were the definitions of a successful test--some real data. That original link didn't offer much. I presume that this is more successful than the horrid land based system--the missile fired after all; that makes it more successful than some of the land based testing. But I'd like some actual detail if you can provide it.

In all seriousness, Deep Kimchi, where can we get info on just how rigged this test was. I mean rigged in the sense of how difficult a test it was in comparison to an actual situation, what were the definitions of a successful test--some real data. That original link didn't offer much. I presume that this is more successful than the horrid land based system--the missile fired after all; that makes it more successful than some of the land based testing. But I'd like some actual detail if you can provide it.
I'm not quite sure what you expect from MDA. Most of this information is probably Confidential, at the least. I've had some unclassified conversations with consultants that MDA has monitoring the program (They're monitoring my program with MDA, too) and they're quite encouraged about the results.

Haven't you ever heard of starting with baby steps? A head-on aspect supersonic intercept isn't that easy. I'd be disappointed if they were going to put all the money on a "unrigged" shot.

What i'd like to see if them, after building a new SSBN, use the Ohio Class as missle platforms for this sort of thing.
No can do. Submersables don't have the necessary reaction time, nor do they carry the necessary radar rigs.

Sock Puppetry,
Qualified in Submarines.

In all seriousness, Deep Kimchi, where can we get info on just how rigged this test was. I mean rigged in the sense of how difficult a test it was in comparison to an actual situation, what were the definitions of a successful test--some real data. That original link didn't offer much. I presume that this is more successful than the horrid land based system--the missile fired after all; that makes it more successful than some of the land based testing. But I'd like some actual detail if you can provide it.
http://www.mda.mil/mdalink/html/mdalink.html

Actually, the horrid part of the land based system is not the missile - it's the system integration. The radar works, the missile works, - it's the battle management that fails right now - fails to send the missile the signal to take off.

That's why they group these tests into individual pieces. Test the missile without the radar and without the battle management - that looks rigged because we're only testing the missile. And right now, the problem with the ground based system is putting it all together - from radar to missile to battle management software.

The sea based has an advantage - the AEGIS fire control software is already a proven, integrated system. They only needed to add a new seeker head and a different booster to the existing Standard missile. So testing went more quickly, and integration was far smoother. Since it's self contained, by nature any integration tests will have far less "rigged" to them.

It's not really in our interest to "rig" tests. If we were constantly "rigging" tests as you assume (you seem to assume that is the norm), then we would expect failures in combat from systems built by the same organization.

The PAC-3 was built by the same organization, using the same techniques of initial divided tests and final integration tests. It was built on the Patriot missile launcher (but the similarity ends there). The missile is new, and does "hit to kill" just like the sea-based and land-based long range interceptor. It uses similar intercept geometry techniques. It has new software, and is fully automated - there's no time for human intervention in the fire control sequence.

And the PAC-3 was wildly successful beyond expectations in the most recent invasion of Iraq.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/patriot-ac-3.htm

PATRIOT battalions with PAC-3 fire units were employed in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) against TBMs. In OIF, PAC-3 interceptors were ripple-fired against ballistic missile threats, a user requirement that was not demonstrated during operational testing. This eliminated the need for a follow-on test to demonstrate this capability. All PATRIOT engagements were conducted in a complex operational environment. There were three instances of erroneous engagements between PATRIOT batteries and friendly aircraft. System performance against TBMs appears to have been highly effective and consistent with expectations documented in DOT&E’s beyond low-rate initial production report submitted to Congress in October 2002. PATRIOT performance during OIF is detailed in the classified FY03 BMDS annual report.

It looks like the primary problem is not that it fails to hit incoming ballistic missile threats, but it shoots down friendly aircraft before you can stop it.