A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Multiple interceptor ABMs



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 2nd 08, 04:17 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Multiple interceptor ABMs

Remember how we told Russia not to be concerned about that little ABM
system we want to install in eastern Europe, as there would only be ten
missiles?
Well, guess what? Ten ABMs may well mean considerably more than ten
interceptor vehicles:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...V&channel=awst

Pat
  #2  
Old June 2nd 08, 04:45 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,736
Default Multiple interceptor ABMs

Pat Flannery wrote:
:
:Remember how we told Russia not to be concerned about that little ABM
:system we want to install in eastern Europe, as there would only be ten
:missiles?
:Well, guess what? Ten ABMs may well mean considerably more than ten
:interceptor vehicles:
:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...V&channel=awst
:

Which really doesn't matter, as they are STILL in the wrong place to
intercept missiles flying from Russia to the US.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
  #3  
Old June 2nd 08, 05:14 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
[email protected][_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 157
Default Multiple interceptor ABMs

On Jun 2, 10:17 am, Pat Flannery 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.

In fact, it seems likely that the firing doctrine will still call for
launching at least two GBIs against each ICBM in order to allow for
boost-phase failures. So 10 GBI = 5 ICBM.
  #4  
Old June 2nd 08, 06:37 PM posted to sci.space.history
sferrin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9
Default Multiple interceptor ABMs

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 10:17:33 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Remember how we told Russia not to be concerned about that little ABM
system we want to install in eastern Europe, as there would only be ten
missiles?
Well, guess what? Ten ABMs may well mean considerably more than ten
interceptor vehicles:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...V&channel=awst

Pat



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.
  #5  
Old June 2nd 08, 10:51 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Multiple interceptor ABMs



Fred J. McCall wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:
:
:Remember how we told Russia not to be concerned about that little ABM
:system we want to install in eastern Europe, as there would only be ten
:missiles?
:Well, guess what? Ten ABMs may well mean considerably more than ten
:interceptor vehicles:
:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...V&channel=awst
:

Which really doesn't matter, as they are STILL in the wrong place to
intercept missiles flying from Russia to the US.

But not in the wrong place to intercept missiles flying from Russia into
Europe.
We say they are to intercept missiles flying from Iran into Europe or
the US... then we also say that we are never going to let Iran have
IRBMs or ICBMs....so building the European ABM system is basically
sending them the message that we expect them to develop such systems and
aren't going to stop them when they do...so they can go ahead and
develop them without us stopping them.
That's a great example of the kind of "left hand doesn't know what the
right hand is doing" logic the Bush administration is noted for.
Who is our ally in the war on terror?
Pakistan.
Who developed the nuclear weapons technology that got leaked to Iran,
Syria, and North Korea?
Pakistan.
Who is our Arab friend in the Mideast?
Saudi Arabia.
Where did the majority of the hijackers in the 911 attack come from?
Saudi Arabia.
Where has heroin production gone through the roof?
Afghanistan.
Who has large military forces in Afghanistan, the ability to spot poppy
fields via satellite or unmanned drones, and yet does nothing to
eradicate the poppy fields via military means?
Us, of course.

Pat
  #6  
Old June 2nd 08, 11:04 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Multiple interceptor ABMs



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.

In fact, it seems likely that the firing doctrine will still call for
launching at least two GBIs against each ICBM in order to allow for
boost-phase failures. So 10 GBI = 5 ICBM.


As I pointed out before...5 ICBMs from _who_?
We say these are supposed to be defense from ICBMs fired from some rogue
state, and yet we say we are never going to let rogue states have ICBMs.
So if you want to send a mixed message to rogue states, that is the
perfect way to do it.

Pat
  #7  
Old June 3rd 08, 12:00 AM posted to sci.space.history
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Multiple interceptor ABMs



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.
Around the time the concrete starts getting poured on that Polish launch
site it might get bombed.
They keep telling us they don't like this idea one bit, and we keep
ignoring them.
That's how wars get started.
We say the reason the base is so far east is to protect Europe also.
If that's the case then let Europe build it and pay for it - both in a
monetary and political sense.
From a strategic point of view, it would be best to get it as near to
the prospective launch point as possible, so that the missiles could be
intercepted as shortly after liftoff as possible, and before they deploy
decoys and penaids. Since this missile are supposed to be coming from
Iran or Syria, a ABM base in Turkey would not only be more effective,
but remove the problems Russia has with it.
Russia even offered us a radar base to use in their southeastern region,
but of course we turned them down. Which doesn't exactly assuage their
concerns over the ABM system being aimed at them, and not rogue
Mideastern states.

Pat
  #8  
Old June 3rd 08, 12:30 AM posted to sci.space.history
OM[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,849
Default Multiple interceptor ABMs

On Mon, 02 Jun 2008 16:51:50 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Where has heroin production gone through the roof?
Afghanistan.


....Yes, but according to junkies worldwide, the quality of smack
hasn't been this good since before the Soviets invaded the place.
Which just goes to show you that unless it's vodka, communism will
always ruin the quality of recreational consumables :-)

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[
  #9  
Old June 5th 08, 09:04 PM posted to sci.space.history
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 270
Default Multiple interceptor ABMs

On Jun 2, 5:00 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
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?


As some horribly complex conspiracy, as they seem to view
*everything.*


They didn't like
the idea when it was just ten missiles...


And the question is "why."

, 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.


Gosh, you're right. They just might build their own tiny little ABM
defense installation. The horror.

  #10  
Old June 5th 08, 09:08 PM posted to sci.space.history,sci.space.policy
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 270
Default Multiple interceptor ABMs

On Jun 2, 3:51 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

Who is our Arab friend in the Mideast?
Saudi Arabia.


Who is our Anglo-Saxon friend in Europe?
Britain.

Where did the majority of the hijackers in the 12-21 attack come from?
Britain.

Where has heroin production gone through the roof?
Afghanistan: former British colony


Who has large military forces in Afghanistan, the ability to spot
poppy fields via satellite or unmanned drones, and yet does nothing to
eradicate the poppy fields via military means?

Britain.

Time to deal with the Brits, it seems. Along with their toadies the
Canadians. Shifty, weaselly *******s, the lot of 'em.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Multiple interceptor ABMs Pat Flannery Policy 40 June 15th 08 10:55 PM
multiple universes? DaveJr Misc 25 September 6th 06 03:17 PM
Soviet space interceptor missile Pat Flannery History 2 December 30th 05 08:31 AM
Multiple Solos readme_D0t_Text History 7 October 4th 04 06:17 PM
Multiple systems - How are they determined to be multiple? Chris L Peterson Amateur Astronomy 3 October 6th 03 06:47 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.