Multiple interceptor ABMs

On Jun 7, 10:51*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
eatfastnoodle wrote:

:On Jun 7, 10:56*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:: eatfastnoodle wrote:

:
: :On Jun 6, 10:54*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:: eatfastnoodle wrote:
:
: :
: : :
: : :I don't see a few interceptors which may or may not work in a real
: : :world scenario *worth the risk and consequence of ****ing off Russia.
: : :
: :
: : Why does Russia care?
: :
: :Because ABM, as seen by Russia, is not just a weapon system, it's a
: :means to eat away Russian sphere of influence and to bind Eastern
: :European countries more tightly to the US.
: :
:
: So why isn't THAT what they're whinging about?
:
:First, you need to read between lines.
:

Translation: *You need to make things up that fit with your ideology.

:Second,
:They are not whining, they are actively creating problems for you. In
:case you haven't noticed yet, US isn't really in very good shape.

In case you haven't noticed, Russia is pretty irrelevant to all that.

:
: :
: :
: : :
: : :US put ten interceptors in Eastern Europe. Russia can always increase
: : :their aid to Iranian nuclear project. Who ends up losing the tit-for-
: : :tat game?
: : :
: :
: : Iran.
: :
: :No, Iran gets more help from Russia which may not be there if Russia
: :and US were on good terms with each other.
: :
:
: And if we don't do anything, why then they don't need more help and we
: STILL eat Iranian nukes.
:
: How is that 'better'?
:
:It's better because if you don't **** off Russia, you may have one
:more ally on your side.

And you may not (and probably won't). *So your view is it's better to
make it EASY for the other side to nuke you.

Your view isn't very bright.

:
: :
: :
: : :
: : :Russia won't fight the US, Russia knows it and US knows it.
: : :
: :
: : So what are they so ****ed off about, again? *That single statement is
: : a pretty convincing reason why nobody should believe that this handful
: : of defensive missiles is aimed against Russia.
: :
: :
: :It's not just military, it's political.
: :
:
: Well, DOH!
:
: So why is it that the only thing the Russians are complaining about is
: how these interceptors are intended to intercept THEIR missiles?
:
: :
: :
: : :
: : :US and Iran are very likely to get into some sort of conflicts, Iran
: : :knows it, US knows it as well. To me, that's a losing game.
: : :
: :
: : And the preceding statement is a convincing reason for deploying such
: : missiles. *And, oddly, this is precisely the reason that the United
: : States has given for their deployment.
: :
: : Funny how that works, isn't it?
: :
: :
: :Well, your missiles have a quite good chance of failure in real
: :conflict. ICBM, on the other hands, is comparably mature technology
: :with far higher success rate.
: :
:
: Poppycock. *
:
: :
: :
: : So why, given your opinion above, does it make sense to you to NOT
: : defend against the handful of missiles that Iran might have in the
: : immediate future?
: :
: :
: :No, post revolution Iran is often painted as a irrational state of
: :terrorism while in reality, Iran almost always behaves rationally. A
: :handful of missiles that can't reach US won't be a threat to anybody
: :since nobody, nobody in Europe at least, will join the US in military
: :action against Iran. Saddam didn't put chemical warheads on Scuds
: :targeting Saudi and Israel in 91. It's not unreasonable to assume that
: :Iran has common sense and Iran isn't dumb enough to risk nuclear
: :response to attack Europe or the US. (notice despite 30 years of non-
: :stop "wipe Israel off the map" rhetoric, Iran hasn't carried out its
: :threat)
: :
:
: I'm not willing to bet my life on a country which behaves as
: irrationally is Iran seems to being rational.
:
:OK, it's your choice to waste money in pursuit of "security". Let's
:wait and see what result you will get.

You Chinese shills are SO funny! *As if China isn't spending any money
"in pursuit of 'security'"...

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Charles Pinckney

go ahead, deploy your useless ABM. Better, invade Iran, let's see who
get the last laugh.

On 6 Jun 2008 11:48:46 -0400, in a place far, far away,
(Scott Dorsey) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Pat Flannery wrote:
Jim Davis wrote:

Afghanistan: former British colony

Really? I don't think so.

Well, at least we tried.

Everybody that has tried so far, which includes the Mughals, the British,
the Russians and a few others, have all failed. You would think that the
American government would have noticed this, but apparently not.

You would think that you would have noticed that the American
government isn't trying to colonize Afghanistan, but apparently not.

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:04:29 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



wrote:
Well, guess what? Ten ABMs may well mean considerably more than ten
interceptor vehicles:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...s/aw060208p1.x...


It's not at all clear that, even with MKV, you could target a single
GBI against more than one ICBM. The MKVs are meant to handle the
possibly large number of objects dispensed by an ICBM: RVs and decoys
and other penaids.


The KKVs and ground based sensors that detect the launch were supposed
to do that all on their own. If they don't, then you are right back to
the problem that killed the US ABM system of the 1960's. Every time
your opponent adds more warheads or decoys to a single missile, you have
to add more ABMs, and the whole concept becomes prohibitively expensive
in short order.

Yes, of course, because it doesn't cost *anything* to add a warhead
and decoy to a missile.

rolling eyes

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 18:00:31 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:



sferrin wrote:

There is no way in hell the KVs have enough cross-range ability to be
chasing multiple missiles. They are strictly to go after decoys to
raise the odds of killing warheads.


How do you think the Russians are going to view this? They didn't like
the idea when it was just ten missiles, and this doesn't help things much.
We keep pushing them enough on this, and just for the sake of national
pride they might do something around the time that ABM base starts
getting built.
People say: "Oh, what will they do? This is no threat to
them."....without remembering that the Soviets had no idea that we were
going to go completely bonkers when we found out that they were
installing nuclear missiles in Cuba.

This is an idiotic analogy. We are not installing nuclear missiles in
Poland.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

:On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:04:29 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
:Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
:such a way as to indicate that:
:
wrote:
: Well, guess what? Ten ABMs may well mean considerably more than ten
: interceptor vehicles:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...s/aw060208p1.x...
:
:
: It's not at all clear that, even with MKV, you could target a single
: GBI against more than one ICBM. The MKVs are meant to handle the
: possibly large number of objects dispensed by an ICBM: RVs and decoys
: and other penaids.
:
:
:The KKVs and ground based sensors that detect the launch were supposed
:to do that all on their own. If they don't, then you are right back to
:the problem that killed the US ABM system of the 1960's. Every time
:your opponent adds more warheads or decoys to a single missile, you have
:to add more ABMs, and the whole concept becomes prohibitively expensive
:in short order.
:
:Yes, of course, because it doesn't cost *anything* to add a warhead
:and decoy to a missile.
:

Sauce for the goose, and all that.

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Mult...ithms_999.html

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

Fred J. McCall wrote:
h (Rand Simberg) wrote:

:On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:04:29 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
:Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
:such a way as to indicate that:
:
wrote:
: Well, guess what? Ten ABMs may well mean considerably more than ten
: interceptor vehicles:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...s/aw060208p1.x...
:
:
: It's not at all clear that, even with MKV, you could target a single
: GBI against more than one ICBM. The MKVs are meant to handle the
: possibly large number of objects dispensed by an ICBM: RVs and decoys
: and other penaids.
:
:
:The KKVs and ground based sensors that detect the launch were supposed
:to do that all on their own. If they don't, then you are right back to
:the problem that killed the US ABM system of the 1960's. Every time
:your opponent adds more warheads or decoys to a single missile, you have
:to add more ABMs, and the whole concept becomes prohibitively expensive
:in short order.
:
:Yes, of course, because it doesn't cost *anything* to add a warhead
:and decoy to a missile.


Decoys can by a souped-up inflatable beach ball* of the shape and size
of the actual RV that is coated with materials that gives it identical
thermal and RCS properties while outside of the atmosphere.
You can only pick those up then they burn up on reentry, and they weigh
around a couple of pounds each.
Which means that our Minuteman III ICBMs, now carrying only a single
warhead - rather than the original three - under the SALT treaties,
could theoretically dispense over one hundred inflatable RV decoys each,
making mid-course intercept virtually impossible unless you want to
deploy around one hundred ABM launched interceptors per enemy missile.
This means that the Europian ABM system will work against missiles shot
at Europe (as they reenter) from the Mideast, China, or North Korea, but
not against those shot at the US from those regions, as they well be
high in space on their way to the US.
Which brings me right back to the statement I made several postings ago:
If Europe wants to be defended from missile attack from those possible
enemies by a US ABM system...then let Europe _buy_ that ABM system from
us... at cost, or even at a profit to us.
....or build their own ABM defense, letting Russia get ****ed at them,
not us.

*These are called "Witch's Hats" BTW.

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: h (Rand Simberg) wrote:
:
: :On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:04:29 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
: :Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: :such a way as to indicate that:
: :
: wrote:
: : Well, guess what? Ten ABMs may well mean considerably more than ten
: : interceptor vehicles:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...s/aw060208p1.x...
: :
: :
: : It's not at all clear that, even with MKV, you could target a single
: : GBI against more than one ICBM. The MKVs are meant to handle the
: : possibly large number of objects dispensed by an ICBM: RVs and decoys
: : and other penaids.
: :
: :
: :The KKVs and ground based sensors that detect the launch were supposed
: :to do that all on their own. If they don't, then you are right back to
: :the problem that killed the US ABM system of the 1960's. Every time
: :your opponent adds more warheads or decoys to a single missile, you have
: :to add more ABMs, and the whole concept becomes prohibitively expensive
: :in short order.
: :
: :Yes, of course, because it doesn't cost *anything* to add a warhead
: :and decoy to a missile.
:

Please don't snip everything I wrote and then leave me at the top of
the attributions.

:
ecoys can by a souped-up inflatable beach ball* of the shape and size
f the actual RV that is coated with materials that gives it identical
:thermal and RCS properties while outside of the atmosphere.
:You can only pick those up then they burn up on reentry, and they weigh
:around a couple of pounds each.

Wrong.

:Which means that our Minuteman III ICBMs, now carrying only a single
:warhead - rather than the original three - under the SALT treaties,
:could theoretically dispense over one hundred inflatable RV decoys each,
:making mid-course intercept virtually impossible unless you want to
:deploy around one hundred ABM launched interceptors per enemy missile.

Absolute poppycock!

:This means that the Europian ABM system will work against missiles shot
:at Europe (as they reenter) from the Mideast, China, or North Korea, but
:not against those shot at the US from those regions, as they well be
:high in space on their way to the US.

Which will probably be before any dispense, which means there are no
decoys to shoot at.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Fred J. McCall wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: h (Rand Simberg) wrote:
:
: :On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:04:29 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
: :Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: :such a way as to indicate that:
: :
: wrote:
: : Well, guess what? Ten ABMs may well mean considerably more than ten
: : interceptor vehicles:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...s/aw060208p1.x...
: :
: :
: : It's not at all clear that, even with MKV, you could target a single
: : GBI against more than one ICBM. The MKVs are meant to handle the
: : possibly large number of objects dispensed by an ICBM: RVs and decoys
: : and other penaids.
: :
: :
: :The KKVs and ground based sensors that detect the launch were supposed
: :to do that all on their own. If they don't, then you are right back to
: :the problem that killed the US ABM system of the 1960's. Every time
: :your opponent adds more warheads or decoys to a single missile, you have
: :to add more ABMs, and the whole concept becomes prohibitively expensive
: :in short order.
: :
: :Yes, of course, because it doesn't cost *anything* to add a warhead
: :and decoy to a missile.
:

Please don't snip everything I wrote and then leave me at the top of
the attributions.

:
ecoys can by a souped-up inflatable beach ball* of the shape and size
f the actual RV that is coated with materials that gives it identical
:thermal and RCS properties while outside of the atmosphere.
:You can only pick those up then they burn up on reentry, and they weigh
:around a couple of pounds each.

Wrong.

Give me a citation on that.
:Which means that our Minuteman III ICBMs, now carrying only a single
:warhead - rather than the original three - under the SALT treaties,
:could theoretically dispense over one hundred inflatable RV decoys each,
:making mid-course intercept virtually impossible unless you want to
:deploy around one hundred ABM launched interceptors per enemy missile.

Absolute poppycock!

Again, citation.
:This means that the Europian ABM system will work against missiles shot
:at Europe (as they reenter) from the Mideast, China, or North Korea, but
:not against those shot at the US from those regions, as they well be
:high in space on their way to the US.

Which will probably be before any dispense, which means there are no
decoys to shoot at.



The warheads dispense from the warhead assembly shortly after the
carrier bus gets into space - as it requires a lot less energy to fling
them in the correct directions for accurate target impact (over a
several hundred mile impact radius) at that point in the trajectory than
from the bus reentry point when it nears the target.
Once free, they can still modify their reentry course over a limited
area, but that at least gets them into the approximately right reentry
trajectory.
BTW, this is kind of fun: the present W-87 Minuteman III warheads have
three different settings for the weather over the impact site; clear
weather, rain, or snow. The warhead modifies its descent trajectory to
match the latest reported meteorological conditions over the target, and
tries to hit the target with as close as possible to a zero position
error as possible by being programmed to pass through the last 30,000
feet of atmosphere as it comes in in the correct manner as far as
trajectory and drag goes.
That generally brings it down within a city block of the target....oddly
enough, with a thermonuclear warhead that has a yield of around fifteen
times as much as the one that fell on Hiroshima, that miss distance
isn't exactly critical, to put it mildly. :-)

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Pat Flannery wrote:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : h (Rand Simberg) wrote:
: :
: : :On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 17:04:29 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
: : :Flannery made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: : :such a way as to indicate that:
: : :
: : wrote:
: : : Well, guess what? Ten ABMs may well mean considerably more than ten
: : : interceptor vehicles:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...s/aw060208p1.x...
: : :
: : :
: : : It's not at all clear that, even with MKV, you could target a single
: : : GBI against more than one ICBM. The MKVs are meant to handle the
: : : possibly large number of objects dispensed by an ICBM: RVs and decoys
: : : and other penaids.
: : :
: : :
: : :The KKVs and ground based sensors that detect the launch were supposed
: : :to do that all on their own. If they don't, then you are right back to
: : :the problem that killed the US ABM system of the 1960's. Every time
: : :your opponent adds more warheads or decoys to a single missile, you have
: : :to add more ABMs, and the whole concept becomes prohibitively expensive
: : :in short order.
: : :
: : :Yes, of course, because it doesn't cost *anything* to add a warhead
: : :and decoy to a missile.
: :
:
: Please don't snip everything I wrote and then leave me at the top of
: the attributions.
:
: :
: ecoys can by a souped-up inflatable beach ball* of the shape and size
: f the actual RV that is coated with materials that gives it identical
: :thermal and RCS properties while outside of the atmosphere.
: :You can only pick those up then they burn up on reentry, and they weigh
: :around a couple of pounds each.
:
: Wrong.
:
:Give me a citation on that.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.o...ti-Missile.htm

"Among the technologies sought by the Navy is a two-color seeker for
the SM-3. A two-color seeker combines the information from two
different wavebands of the infrared spectrum to perform RV-decoy
discrimination."

Note that this is an old article and I believe that such 2-color IR
seekers are already out there.

"On 14 October 2002, a ground based interceptor launched from the
Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Site destroyed a mock warhead
225 km above the Pacific. The test included three decoy balloons."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationa...se#cite_note-2

See also anything about test IFT-8 (for example).

:
:
: :
: :Which means that our Minuteman III ICBMs, now carrying only a single
: :warhead - rather than the original three - under the SALT treaties,
: :could theoretically dispense over one hundred inflatable RV decoys each,
: :making mid-course intercept virtually impossible unless you want to
: :deploy around one hundred ABM launched interceptors per enemy missile.
:
: Absolute poppycock!
:
:Again, citation.

Simple physics, Pat. Just because the vehicle can lift the weight
doesn't mean you can stuff just anything in there. Think 'volume
limited'. You can't just inflate these things easily on orbit.

: :This means that the Europian ABM system will work against missiles shot
: :at Europe (as they reenter) from the Mideast, China, or North Korea, but
: :not against those shot at the US from those regions, as they well be
: :high in space on their way to the US.
:
: Which will probably be before any dispense, which means there are no
: decoys to shoot at.
:
:
:The warheads dispense from the warhead assembly shortly after the
:carrier bus gets into space - as it requires a lot less energy to fling
:them in the correct directions for accurate target impact (over a
:several hundred mile impact radius) at that point in the trajectory than
:from the bus reentry point when it nears the target.

But doing it too early decreases accuracy. This also isn't an
instantaneous process. Typically RV bussing won't start until some 6
minutes or so into the flight and will take several minutes to
accomplish.

http://www.missilethreat.com/reposit...ctedenergy.pdf

If you look at the flight profile shown at the start of Section 2 and
superimpose it on a map, you'll see that Poland is pretty much a good
place to catch Iranian weapons prior to bussing.

--
"Death is my gift." -- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

On Jun 8, 4:29*pm, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On 6 Jun 2008 11:48:46 -0400, in a place far, far away,
(Scott Dorsey) made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Pat Flannery wrote:
Jim Davis wrote:

Afghanistan: former British colony

Really? I don't think so.

Well, at least we tried.

Everybody that has tried so far, which includes the Mughals, the British,
the Russians and a few others, have all failed. *You would think that the
American government would have noticed this, but apparently not.

You would think that you would have noticed that the American
government isn't trying to colonize Afghanistan, but apparently not.

What exactly does the American government want from Afghanistan?