Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US Missile Defense

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • US Missile Defense

    The US is making good progress in its development of a multi layered missile defence system (MDS). In addition to its already standing systems namely Alaska, Aegis, THAAD and patriot, the US has a number of other promising systems in the horizon namely ABL, MKV-L (maybe MKV-R as well) and the to be European based radar and missile interceptors. If indeed the systems work as advertised, no doubt the US would have achieved a milestone in its endeavor to shield the US from any possible ICBM attack.

    My question is is it inconcievable that once the US has all these systems up and running, the US would be virtually impenetrable to ICBM attack? If indeed the US is pushing for a completely impenetrable umbrella using these systems, how practical is such an ambition in terms of resources that will be recquired to have sufficient numbers of its system components to provid such an umbrella?

    Lastly, much has been said about Russia's new missile which is said to defeat any shield, can someone please shed light on how exactly this missile can defeat a sheild with all the above listed US systems operating.

    Thanks

  • #2
    Originally posted by Zinja View Post
    My question is is it inconcievable that once the US has all these systems up and running, the US would be virtually impenetrable to ICBM attack? If indeed the US is pushing for a completely impenetrable umbrella using these systems, how practical is such an ambition in terms of resources that will be recquired to have sufficient numbers of its system components to provid such an umbrella?
    No, that's not the point of NMD. The point of NMD is to deter rouge states with few missiles, neutralize their first strike capability, and to limit first strike capability among states with more than a few missiles. If states cannot be assured that their first strike will take the US out, then they may be less inclined to launch an attack depending on how much damage they are willing/able to sustain in a US second strike.

    But as far as impenetrable or virtually so, sorry, missiles launched by major states will get through. Just not as many as they would hope (in theory). The US just does not have the capability to shoot down thousands of missiles at the same time.

    Lastly, much has been said about Russia's new missile which is said to defeat any shield, can someone please shed light on how exactly this missile can defeat a sheild with all the above listed US systems operating.
    I'm not sure about that, if a missile has IR signatures (and I am pretty sure all missiles do) it will be picked up by these systems, if they are operational. The question is does the missile have counter-measures Most of US's missile defense is midcourse, and terminal phase. It is possible I guess that it could escape midcourse and terminal interceptors with counter-measures, and since we are still waiting on ABL or an equivalent effective boost phase intercept to be developed (KEI), a boost phase kill isn't going to happen. The longer the missile stays aloft the less likely it is to be shot down.

    Comment


    • #3
      Wouldn't these NMD systems also make a US first strike more feasible, i.e. able to cope with an enemy's remaining forces after most have been destroyed by a first strike?

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Herodotus View Post
        No, that's not the point of NMD. The point of NMD is to deter rouge states with few missiles, neutralize their first strike capability, and to limit first strike capability among states with more than a few missiles.
        There is plenty deterrence already as it is without the incoming new systems for any states with a 'a few missiles'. Im afraid i don't agree with that explanation.

        Originally posted by Herodotus View Post
        If states cannot be assured that their first strike will take the US out, then they may be less inclined to launch an attack depending on how much damage they are willing/able to sustain in a US second strike.
        Any state launching against the US as it stands now knows fully well that there will be plenty retaliation from the US with the US's current system, let alone with the addition of incoming systems. MAD doctrine made sure of that.

        Originally posted by Herodotus View Post
        But as far as impenetrable or virtually so, sorry, missiles launched by major states will get through. Just not as many as they would hope (in theory). The US just does not have the capability to shoot down thousands of missiles at the same time.
        Thats the question that im asking in this thread. How effective would be the system with all its systems operational and working as advertised. Can a nation launch more missiles per unit time faster than an ABL system is able to count them if the ABL system is fielded in sufficient numbers? How many sufficient ABL systems would need to be fielded and how practical is that number? For those that can can filter through the ABL, how many would sufficiently need to go through to escape aegis, thaad, Alaska and MKV-L with a single missile carrying 6-8 KI warheads with independant steering and intercepting capabilities? How many of these system's components would need to be fielded to counter any likely number of ICBM that can be launched by any known US adversary?

        Originally posted by Herodotus View Post


        I'm not sure about that, if a missile has IR signatures (and I am pretty sure all missiles do) it will be picked up by these systems, if they are operational. The question is does the missile have counter-measures Most of US's missile defense is midcourse, and terminal phase. It is possible I guess that it could escape midcourse and terminal interceptors with counter-measures, and since we are still waiting on ABL or an equivalent effective boost phase intercept to be developed (KEI), a boost phase kill isn't going to happen. The longer the missile stays aloft the less likely it is to be shot down.
        I agree, but topolM is said to be 'stealthy', and not to follow the traditional parabola path of ICBM. The questions i then have in my mind is even if the topolM has hover, duck, skip and jump capabilities equal to that of a fighter ac so that it out maneuver interceptors (not that im implying that this is what it does), how is that of any use against an ABL travelling at the speed of light? Also, remember that topol carries only one warhead, how would it escape even a single MKV-L missile carrying multiple interceptors (even if topol deploys decoys)? Two or three MKV-L launched will recquire at least about 15 decoys if it is going to be able to go through.

        I think i also read somewhere that in a scenario of nuclear attack agaisnt the US, US's fighters at close proximity have the capability of intercepting ICBM at boost phase using amraams (might need to check that though).

        These are the scenarios playing in my mind. In an all out nuclear exchange and the US despatches all its NMD systems, is it inconcieveable that with all of US's current and incoming systems up and running, it could catch all ICBM that an adversary is practically able to launch?
        Last edited by Zinja; 29 Dec 08,, 15:24.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Zinja View Post
          There is plenty deterrence already as it is without the incoming new systems for any states with a 'a few missiles'. Im afraid i don't agree with that explanation.
          Not MAD, you can't have Mutually Assured Destruction when one state has 4 or 5 missiles and the other one has 10,000. The US would lose a city but that in and of itself wouldn't justify destroying an entire country. In order to prevent the loss of the city to begin with is what NMD is all about.

          Any state launching against the US as it stands now knows fully well that there will be plenty retaliation from the US with the US's current system, let alone with the addition of incoming systems.

          MAD doctrine made sure of that.
          Only with Russia, or USSR in the Cold War, did MAD doctrine work. MAD doctrine would not work against N. Korea whose leader may have no qualms about losing a city in order to inflict pain on the US. In order to prevent that pain and neutralize that state from nuclear blackmail, etc. is what NMD was initially for, after Star Wars. MAD doctrine doesn't really work with a missile defense program.


          Thats the question that im asking in this thread. How effective would be the system with all its systems operational and working as advertised. Can a nation launch more missiles per unit time faster than an ABL system is able to count them if the ABL system is fielded in sufficient numbers? How many sufficient ABL systems would need to be fielded and how practical is that number? For those that can can filter through the ABL, how many would sufficiently need to go through to escape aegis, thaad, Alaska and MKV-L with a single missile carrying 6-8 KI warheads with independant steering and intercepting capabilities? How many of these system's components would need to be fielded to counter any likely number of ICBM that can be launched by any known US adversary?
          Well those are good questions, and I am not privy to all those answers. An ABL is expensive though, can we field a thousand, a hundred...one? It also depends on the threat: Russia, China, Iran, North Korea? What about MIRV'd warheads? If we have unlimited budget and unlimited resources, then yeah we could probably field a very effective NMD system that would/could deter nearly all states.


          I agree, but topolM is said to be 'stealthy', and not to follow the traditional parabola path of ICBM. The questions i then have in my mind is even if the topolM has hover, duck, skip and jump capabilities equal to that of a fighter ac so that it out maneuver interceptors (not that im implying that this is what it does), how is that of any use against an ABL travelling at the speed of light? Also, remember that topol carries only one warhead, how would it escape even a single MKV-L missile carrying multiple interceptors (even if topol deploys decoys)? Two or three MKV-L launched will recquire at least about 15 decoys if it is going to be able to go through.

          Well with boost-phase intercept capabilities all those countermeasures become irrelevant, I would imagine. If ABL becomes operational and is successful then it could in theory take out the topolM.


          I think i also read somewhere that in a scenario of nuclear attack agaisnt the US, US's fighters at close proximity have the capability of intercepting ICBM at boost phase using amraams (might need to check that though).

          These are the scenarios playing in my mind. In an all out nuclear exchange and the US despatches all its NMD systems, is it inconcieveable that with all of US's current and incoming systems up and running, it could catch all ICBM that an adversary is practically able to launch?
          With political will, unlimited budget, and resources, and getting up all current and future systems it could be conceivable that the US could have an effective NMD that intercepts all ICBMs. But that assumes a lot. What about the incoming administration's promise to scale back NMD?

          If you are looking for something on the physics of missile defense, i.e. is it possible to do all these things, this book, though dated, is informative: http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Techno...0584275&sr=1-1

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Herodotus View Post
            Not MAD, you can't have Mutually Assured Destruction when one state has 4 or 5 missiles and the other one has 10,000. The US would lose a city but that in and of itself wouldn't justify destroying an entire country. In order to prevent the loss of the city to begin with is what NMD is all about.



            Only with Russia, or USSR in the Cold War, did MAD doctrine work. MAD doctrine would not work against N. Korea whose leader may have no qualms about losing a city in order to inflict pain on the US. In order to prevent that pain and neutralize that state from nuclear blackmail, etc. is what NMD was initially for, after Star Wars. MAD doctrine doesn't really work with a missile defense program.
            My second comment mentioning MAD i was refering to your second comment on states that can 'take out' the US on first strike, this is where i mentioned MAD. MAD is irrelevant for states that have a few missiles, and for such states in my first comment i was stating that it is not an issue of mutually assured destruction but the very reality of US's assernal is enough deterrent for them. States with a few missiles know pretty well that a attack on the US is a sure ticket to meet their marker, that in its own is enough deterrence for small states.

            Originally posted by Herodotus View Post
            Well those are good questions, and I am not privy to all those answers. An ABL is expensive though, can we field a thousand, a hundred...one?
            Those are the questions im looking for answers for. Even if ABL is expensive still what impact would even a handful of them have in the theatre? Lets say its as expensive as the B2, and the US fields just 10 of them (surely the US can afford that), what does that mean in the theatre? They claim that the ABL can track and engage multiple targets at once and it takes about 8-12 secs from detection by the first laser to destruction of its target. Stretch that to say 15sec, we are talking of 40 engagements per minute for a fleet of 10 ABLs!

            Originally posted by Herodotus View Post
            What about MIRV'd warheads?
            Being a MIRV makes no difference to an ABL system since the the target is destroyed still at boost phase when all its warheads are still encased in the missile.

            However, my premise is not that ABL should catch all ICBMs but rather take out as many as it can. Those lucky ones that escape ABL Aegis takes over. The remaining few that escape Aegis and deploy MIRVs then MKV-L is the answer, killing all warheads and all its decoys. By the time Alaska and THAAD take over there will be so few threats to deal with, hence a reasonable chance that they can all be successfully intercepted before they hit the US. Do you see why im infering that the US is driving to a complete impenetrable shield over the US?

            Originally posted by Herodotus View Post
            If we have unlimited budget and unlimited resources, then yeah we could probably field a very effective NMD system that would/could deter nearly all states.
            Yes, hence im asking what are the practical implications of this coming shield? If 10 ABLs can have an impact as explained above, how much of Aegis (interceptors) does the US need to ensure coverage of the the remaining missiles which escape ABL? And those that escape Aegis how much would the US have to invest in THAAD, patriot and other homeland defense systems to ensure countering the remainder of the inbound missiles? How practical is such a shield in terms of resources and technological feasibility of the said systems?

            Originally posted by Herodotus View Post
            Well with boost-phase intercept capabilities all those countermeasures become irrelevant, I would imagine. If ABL becomes operational and is successful then it could in theory take out the topolM.
            My point though is look at the total system as a whole, ABL does not have to take out all the ICBMs. But if ABL works as advertised it would be such a game changer, in my opinion it becomes arguable that it is possible for the US to have an almost assured impenetrable shield over its territory, can members of WAB give their input please.

            Originally posted by Herodotus View Post
            With political will, unlimited budget, and resources, and getting up all current and future systems it could be conceivable that the US could have an effective NMD that intercepts all ICBMs. But that assumes a lot. What about the incoming administration's promise to scale back NMD?
            Well, that is a different ball game altogether :). But politics aside, just the system alone what do you think?

            Originally posted by Herodotus View Post
            If you are looking for something on the physics of missile defense, i.e. is it possible to do all these things, this book, though dated, is informative: http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Techno...0584275&sr=1-1
            $150>, sorry, credit crunch :))!
            Last edited by Zinja; 30 Dec 08,, 00:12.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Zinja View Post
              My second comment mentioning MAD i was refering to your second comment on states that can 'take out' the US on first strike, this is where i mentioned MAD. MAD is irrelevant for states that have a few missiles, and for such states in my first comment i was stating that it is not an issue of mutually assured destruction but the very reality of US's assernal is enough deterrent for them. States with a few missiles know pretty well that a attack on the US is a sure ticket to meet their marker, that in its own is enough deterrence for small states.
              Well if those states are deterred by other means (i.e. the US's arsenal) then there is no need for missile defense. The theory behind missile defense is that some or all of those states are not deterred by conventional means. You should read Keith Payne's book on Cold War deterrence: http://www.amazon.com/Fallacies-Cold...0592747&sr=1-4


              Those are the questions im looking for answers for. Even if ABL is expensive still what impact would even a handful of them have in the theatre? Lets say its as expensive as the B2, and the US fields just 10 of them (surely the US can afford that), what does that mean in the theatre? They claim that the ABL can track and engage multiple targets at once and it takes about 8-12 secs from detection by the first laser to destruction of its target. Stretch that to say 15sec, we are talking of 40 engagements per minute for a fleet of 10 ABLs!

              This article is from a few years ago, but it is still relevant, about Airborne Boost-phase defense, the author writes about capabilities: http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/pu..._wilkening.pdf

              I found this part interesting:

              BOOST-PHASE COUNTERMEASURES
              Relatively few countermeasures exist against boost-phase ballistic missile defenses.
              Clearly lightweight decoys and other penetration aids that challenge
              midcourse ballistic missile defense systems do not interfere with boost-phase
              defense. The two obvious countermeasures are missiles with short boost times
              and missiles that can maneuver during their boost phase. Both of these countermeasures
              have been taken into account in this analysis. Solid-propellant missiles,
              for example, the 180-second ICBM examined in this analysis, stress boostphase
              intercepts. However, ABIs still have substantial capability if light-weight
              advanced KKVs can be designed. If fast burn solid-propellant ICBMs are deployed
              of the sort hypothesized during the US Strategic Defense Initiative in
              the mid-1980s with boost times as short as 100 seconds, then boost-phase intercept
              capability would be severely compromised unless ABI launch platforms
              fly over the opponent’s territory.

              Being a MIRV makes no difference to an ABL system since the the target is destroyed still at boost phase when all its warheads are still encased in the missile.
              Not to an ABL but to KEIs in midcourse, though you are right the MKV-L compensates for MIRV.

              However, my premise is not that ABL should catch all ICBMs but rather take out as many as it can. Those lucky ones that escape ABL Aegis takes over. The remaining few that escape Aegis and deploy MIRVs then MKV-L is the answer, killing all warheads and all its decoys. By the time Alaska and THAAD take over there will be so few threats to deal with, hence a reasonable chance that they can all be successfully intercepted before they hit the US. Do you see why im infering that the US is driving to a complete impenetrable shield over the US?
              I see your point yes, though the converse could occur. Other states could build up their missile forces to try to overcome the US's advantage on defense. So the US would have to continue building ABLs, and other forms of defense. What if there are simultaneous threats as well?

              Yes, hence im asking what are the practical implications of this coming shield? If 10 ABLs can have an impact as explained above, how much of Aegis (interceptors) does the US need to ensure coverage of the the remaining missiles which escape ABL? And those that escape Aegis how much would the US have to invest in THAAD, patriot and other homeland defense systems to ensure countering the remainder of the inbound missiles? How practical is such a shield in terms of resources and technological feasibility of the said systems?
              Well it depends, like I said, on the number and nature of the threats. Against Russia and China, you're going to need more defenses, against North Korea, not so much. Against everybody? Keep building, though keep in mind that the missile states could continue to enhance the number of their missiles to blunt the edge of missile defense.


              My point though is look at the total system as a whole, ABL does not have to take out all the ICBMs. But if ABL works as advertised it would be such a game changer, in my opinion it becomes arguable that it is possible for the US to have an almost assured impenetrable shield over its territory, can members of WAB give their input please.

              Well, that is a different ball game altogether :). But politics aside, just the system alone what do you think?
              Again it depends on the nature, number, of the threat, and assumes a static number of missiles. I don't think you can assume that, and there are no guarantees. I am leery of calling any system 100% full proof, or nearly so, thus statements like "almost assured impenetrable shield" are not very meaningful.

              Impenetrable against my grandmother; you bet, she can't get a missile through. Impenetrable against Russia, China, Pakistan, and Iran, all at once? I don't know about that, and I wouldn't want a policymaker to be lulled into a false sense of security with that kind of thinking.
              Last edited by Herodotus; 30 Dec 08,, 00:53.

              Comment


              • #8
                I think in the end the ABL will be most valuable as a 600km range air dominance platform.being able to pop the enemies AWACS, or 4+ gen fighters from 3-5x missile range will be huge.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by zraver View Post
                  I think in the end the ABL will be most valuable as a 600km range air dominance platform.being able to pop the enemies AWACS, or 4+ gen fighters from 3-5x missile range will be huge.
                  Not in Earth's atmosphere.
                  Winter is coming.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by NUS View Post
                    Not in Earth's atmosphere.
                    yes, in Earth's atmosphere. If you can burn a missile, you can burn a plane.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by zraver View Post
                      yes, in Earth's atmosphere. If you can burn a missile, you can burn a plane.
                      You have misunderstood my point. You can't burn a missile in Earth's atmosphere with airborn system at 600km. One cant change laws of physics.
                      Winter is coming.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by NUS View Post
                        You have misunderstood my point. You can't burn a missile in Earth's atmosphere with airborn system at 600km. One cant change laws of physics.
                        yes you can, you can't invent laws that say otherwise. The atmosphere is simply not dense enough to stop a megawatt class laser. The problem is beam focus and that seems to have been overcome. The ABL will be able to destroy liquid fueled missiles at 600km, and solid fueled at 300km. A ground based system will reliable power should be able to hit anything it sees.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          abl ,plus many more

                          some u.s designs ive never heard of on the horizon,the power of the upcoming lasers is tremendous, plus they are powerful mini modular lasers that you stack the modules to build up the watts for whatever application your applying it too,jet,ship ,tank it was called starstreak or strike or something ,i opened a thread about it last month.its been givin a go by u.s military for any orders.

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X