Boeing 747 Laser

EricT wrote:

Something classified apparently. :-D

Pat

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 02:41:37 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:



Matthew Ota wrote:

Actually, we have no ABM defense against incoming ICBM warheads. The
Sprint and Spartan systems were deactivated way back in the 70s,
leaving us with no defense against nukes. This is waht prompter Regan
to start the SDI program.

Granted we are off topic here but I wanted to clarify this. We have no
current land based defense against reentry vehicles.

Matthew Ota


No, we've got a few "operational" RV interceptors ready in Alaska and
California at the moment, but they have shown anything but acceptable
performance during tests: http://www.missilethreat.com/news/land.html
They are intended to destroy the incoming RV's before they reach the
atmosphere.

Pat


With the exception of the last couple no-shows (yeah I know) it was
actually starting to do pretty good.

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:20:25 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:



EricT wrote:

Any one know where the laser toting 747 is now? If the plan is to
shoot the North Korean missile down, would we do it with a laser? If we
miss the missile with the ABM interceptors it would be an embarrassment, but
if we miss it with the Boeing (Deathstar) 747 know one would ever know we
tried.

I assume that the North Koreans are not stupid enough to throw it in
our direction, so I don't know how the ABMs are supposed to intercept it
anyway. Is there a chance, assuming our ABM system actually works, of
intercepting the NK missile in a trajectory not aimed at the US westcoast,
or is this a fantasy of the Newsmedia?


I think the most likely mode of interception is a boost-phase intercept
by the Navy missile cruiser that is presently sailing off of the North
Korean coast using its upgraded Standard Missile-3 system.
The Navy has recently done successful ABM tests of this system against
target missiles:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001409.html
Unless North Korea fired the missile at the United States itself (which
would be insane, but these aren't the most rational people in the world)
I doubt that the missile would ever come in range of our land-based ABMs.
As for the 747 ABL system, the little I've heard of it recently seems to
suggest that it is moving forward at a snail's pace, and may be a target
for cancellation.

Pat


SM-3 has no capability inside the atmosphere and by the time an ICBM
is in space it's probably going too fast. That SM-2 Block IV they
tested a few weeks ago might be just the ticket though ;-)

D. Scott Ferrin wrote:

SM-3 has no capability inside the atmosphere and by the time an ICBM
is in space it's probably going too fast. That SM-2 Block IV they
tested a few weeks ago might be just the ticket though ;-)



Speaking of missile tests disguised as satellite launches, I found this
very interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-5_rocket
What exactly would Japan need a MX clone for?
It's most likely military opponent is either China or North Korea, and
neither of those are far enough away to require the sort of range this
three-stage rocket would have in a ICBM role.
We, on the other hand, are that far away.
Are they getting edgy about U.S. interference in their oil supply again,
like happened in 1941?

Pat

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 17:15:29 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:


The ABL on the other hand....Boeing has even removed the webpage devoted
to it.

No, they just rearranged things again...
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/abl/

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote:

No, they just rearranged things again...
http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/abl/



They used to have a whole slew of data connected to it; cutaways,
graphs, artist's conceptions, you name it.
Now they've got a 2 page .pdf from March 2005.
Check out this BTW: http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002317.html
.....and this, about the cool-down time after it fires:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/001554.html
That's a major problem; salvo launched missiles will get past anything
other than a fleet of ABLs using this type of technology.
Here's what happened to the program:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002176.html

Pat

Pat Flannery ) writes:
D. Scott Ferrin wrote:

SM-3 has no capability inside the atmosphere and by the time an ICBM
is in space it's probably going too fast. That SM-2 Block IV they
tested a few weeks ago might be just the ticket though ;-)

Speaking of missile tests disguised as satellite launches, I found this
very interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-5_rocket
What exactly would Japan need a MX clone for?
It's most likely military opponent is either China or North Korea, and
neither of those are far enough away to require the sort of range this
three-stage rocket would have in a ICBM role.
We, on the other hand, are that far away.
Are they getting edgy about U.S. interference in their oil supply again,
like happened in 1941?

Go re-read a copy of Tom Clancy's " Debt Of Honor ". g

Andre

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 17:26:45 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:



D. Scott Ferrin wrote:

SM-3 has no capability inside the atmosphere and by the time an ICBM
is in space it's probably going too fast. That SM-2 Block IV they
tested a few weeks ago might be just the ticket though ;-)



Speaking of missile tests disguised as satellite launches, I found this
very interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-5_rocket
What exactly would Japan need a MX clone for?
It's most likely military opponent is either China or North Korea, and
neither of those are far enough away to require the sort of range this
three-stage rocket would have in a ICBM role.
We, on the other hand, are that far away.
Are they getting edgy about U.S. interference in their oil supply again,
like happened in 1941?

Pat


Depends. Some parts of China would be 3000 miles away and Japan's 1st
nukes wouldn't necessarily be W-88s right out of the box even with
their technology base. Also it would allow them to use conventional
warheads or drop a stage off and just use two stages. A 3 stage space
launcher and a two stage ballistic missile.

On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 17:15:29 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:



D. Scott Ferrin wrote:



No, we've got a few "operational" RV interceptors ready in Alaska and
California at the moment, but they have shown anything but acceptable
performance during tests: http://www.missilethreat.com/news/land.html
They are intended to destroy the incoming RV's before they reach the
atmosphere.

Pat




With the exception of the last couple no-shows (yeah I know) it was
actually starting to do pretty good.



The one that seems to be working very well is the Standard Missile-3
Navy system.
The ABL on the other hand....Boeing has even removed the webpage devoted
to it.
It looks like it will join the atomic-powered airplane, Copper Canyon
TAV bomber, and X-33 SSTO demonstrator in the "what _were_ they
thinking?" pile of discarded projects that cost a bundle and produced
zip, due to a fundamental flaw in their design conception.

Pat


Last I heard ABL is still going strong.

http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/abl_usa.html


At worst I think what might happen is the numbers get scaled back
simply because of the advances in solidstate lasers. Many of the
problems that need to be solved are independant of the type of laser
you're using so it would be quite a waste of money to cancel it. At
the very least I'd think they'd use it to work out all the kinks of
putting energy on the target and giving an "emergency capability".
Maybe two or three in service instead of the seven or so they'd
originally planned. Then when they switch to solidstate lasers down
the road they could just use the 787 or 777 or something. Use an
F135 (no afterburner necessary :-) ) to drive two counter-rotating
flywheels on the CG so you can tap a LARGE amount of power in a hurry.
.. . maybe that's overkill. Not the flywheels but maybe you don't need
THAT much shp driving them if you have a bit to spool them up.

D. Scott Ferrin wrote:


Depends. Some parts of China would be 3000 miles away and Japan's 1st
nukes wouldn't necessarily be W-88s right out of the box even with
their technology base.



Yeah, right.
The Chinese would be expecting them to attack with boosted fission warheads.
They wouldn't be expecting anything else regarding Japan's abrogation of
the development of "nuclear weapons" in regards to bombs.
Except for of course NUCLEAR HEAT CANNONS bounced off the ionosphere!
Remember how we didn't see the coming German rocket threat when the
Treaty Of Versailles was negotiated in 1918?
Big battleships out; big artillery out.
Not a mention of big rockets being out.
THEY CAN FIGHT MOTHRA AND THE MYSTERIANS; THEY CAN FIGHT BEIJING! ;-)

Pat