Russia to develop sea-based space-defense system

[UKBengali]

Read the available technical material.

Define what you mean by "2 generations ahead"?

 

[zzzz]

Chinese = None
EU = None
US = SM3 - which is two generations ahead of S400!

SM3 - is anti-ballistic missile that cannt be used against targets like jets and cruise missiles while S-400 can be used against any kind of target and has about the same capabilities as SM3. Learn something before spouting nonsense.

 

[Oldman1]

Obama's 'Proven' SM-3 Missile Interceptor May Only Succeed 20 Percent of the Time, Say Physicists


At issue is whether or not the SM-3 is actually capable of destroying the warhead aboard an ICBM as opposed to simply destroying the launch vehicle. The interceptor contains what's known as an exoatmospheric kill vehicle, which uses an onboard telescope to look across space for telltale signs of an incoming rocket. Once the target is acquired, the kill vehicle slams into it, destroying it via impact.

Postol and Lewis argue that missiles -- particularly ICBMs -- are big vehicles, with their warheads being but small parts of the whole. Though the SM-3 indeed makes contact with incoming threats with regular frequency, it only struck the warhead directly in tests twice out of ten tries. That means the warhead could still be loose in the atmosphere, free to fall wherever gravity takes it. And, as Postol points out to the NYT, if we merely nudge a missile headed for Wall Street off course enough to hit Brooklyn, we can't call that a success.

The Pentagon claims that in tests their mock warheads were destroyed in the breakup of the launch vehicle, regardless of whether the SM-3 scored a direct hit to the warhead of simply impacted the carrier vehicle. But Postol and Lewis argue that mock warheads are far more fragile than actual nukes, which are designed to withstand the heat and stresses of space flight.

As such, the difference of a few inches could be the difference between a kill for the SM-3 and a nuclear strike for the enemy. Those are an important few inches, not just for the future of the SM-3 but for Obama's nuclear policy.

Obama's 'Proven' SM-3 Missile Interceptor May Only Succeed 20 Percent of the Time, Say Physicists | Popular Science

This reminds one of the Patriot system against the basic scuds!

Fragile or not when something hits that hard at that speeds, its gone.

 

[Audio]

Intercepting the Missile Body (as displayed in testing of SM-3) and intercepting a WARHEAD, are totally different things. A bigger body means a higher IR signature, and can be relatively easily intercepted. Whereas in a real scenario, the warhead is detached a few minutes after launch and only a small body is headed towards the target, which is much harder to intercept.

ABMs have a alot of catching up to do. The countermeasures against them are very simple to deploy, and very hard to counter.

All true!

but i think part of the logic of positioning them in Poland and in the Meditteranean Sea is that they could engage missile's before warhead separation, that is in midcourse.
US Army has a programme though, called THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) which targets them in the last phase, with decoys deployed and is already operational.

 

[gambit]

Obama's 'Proven' SM-3 Missile Interceptor May Only Succeed 20 Percent of the Time, Say Physicists


At issue is whether or not the SM-3 is actually capable of destroying the warhead aboard an ICBM as opposed to simply destroying the launch vehicle. The interceptor contains what's known as an exoatmospheric kill vehicle, which uses an onboard telescope to look across space for telltale signs of an incoming rocket. Once the target is acquired, the kill vehicle slams into it, destroying it via impact.

Postol and Lewis argue that missiles -- particularly ICBMs -- are big vehicles, with their warheads being but small parts of the whole. Though the SM-3 indeed makes contact with incoming threats with regular frequency, it only struck the warhead directly in tests twice out of ten tries. That means the warhead could still be loose in the atmosphere, free to fall wherever gravity takes it. And, as Postol points out to the NYT, if we merely nudge a missile headed for Wall Street off course enough to hit Brooklyn, we can't call that a success.

The Pentagon claims that in tests their mock warheads were destroyed in the breakup of the launch vehicle, regardless of whether the SM-3 scored a direct hit to the warhead of simply impacted the carrier vehicle. But Postol and Lewis argue that mock warheads are far more fragile than actual nukes, which are designed to withstand the heat and stresses of space flight.

As such, the difference of a few inches could be the difference between a kill for the SM-3 and a nuclear strike for the enemy. Those are an important few inches, not just for the future of the SM-3 but for Obama's nuclear policy.

Obama's 'Proven' SM-3 Missile Interceptor May Only Succeed 20 Percent of the Time, Say Physicists | Popular Science

This reminds one of the Patriot system against the basic scuds!

What that mean is that Postol demand an unrealistic goal for the current interception scheme -- complete destruction of the descending warhead.

The only way to satisfy that demand is with a nuclear tipped interceptor, which we had during the Cold War. But even so, Postol and his intellectually dishonest ilk would still criticize it as being environmentally unfriendly anyway. Theater defense is about defending a specific ground target against a ballistic attack. If the interceptor managed to deflect such an attack by damaging, instead of complete destruction, of the descending warhead, it is a successful defense. As for the debris, where else are they supposed to go with gravity acting upon them?

So no matter what, the concept of defense is a 'lost cause', according to Postol and his kind. Best to leave the US undefended, which is what he wanted in the first place.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Chinese = None
EU = None
US = SM3 - which is two generations ahead of S400!

China has HQ-26, and if you wanna discuss this, then let's discuss this in another thread.

 

[gambit]

Intercepting the Missile Body (as displayed in testing of SM-3) and intercepting a WARHEAD, are totally different things.

Absolutely they are different. No one said otherwise.

A bigger body means a higher IR signature, and can be relatively easily intercepted. Whereas in a real scenario, the warhead is detached a few minutes after launch and only a small body is headed towards the target, which is much harder to intercept.

It looks like you have an incomplete understanding of the subject.

There are three main 'stages' or 'phases' in a ballistic missile flight path. From left to right: Launch. Mid-course. Terminal.

Inside each of them are 'mini-stages' themselves where the missile executes different actions to prepare itself for the next main stage. But that is for a different discussion.

To intercept the missile AS EARLY INTO ITS TOTAL FLIGHT DURATION AND PATH AS POSSIBLE is the goal.

Each stage have its own technical and logistical hurdles to overcome, but essentially, the later into its flight, the more technically difficult it gets. We will work backwards -- right to left.

The 'terminal' stage is where the missile deploys its warheads, which for the sake of discussion will include decoys, and which we will assume to be warheads as well. Each warhead would be smaller than the vehicle that carried it up to this point. Each warhead would be descending at double digits Mach, making interception a 'one-time' proposition. Terminal interception is where the enemy is pretty much directly over one's territory, making successful interception at the first attempt imperative on the technical front.

The 'mid-course' stage is where the missile is still unitary, meaning intact despite having to shed a few parts here and there. It is essentially in free fall in a very short suborbital flight path. Its sensor responses are high, as in radar target size and IR emission. So the technical difficulty is not as demanding. But logistically speaking, the defender must be further away from home base. Each defensive post must be self sufficient and long duration in ability. This defense method also places the defender closer to the enemy's territory or offensive postings, and therefore can be threatened by the enemy.

The 'launch' stage is where the missile is first unitary and most vulnerable. The missile is effectively inside enemy home territory or controlled territory. The missile will have the highest radar and IR responses. Radar because the missile have not shed any of its boosting mechanisms. IR because there is a long and clear fire trail from the rocket motors. A ballistic defense that target the missile at its launch location is the least technically demanding. An ICBM's fuselage is very similar to an airliner -- a long tube. This is a tube (hollow), not a cylinder (solid), hence it suffers from fuselage flex and vibrations under stresses, just like a 747 would. Further, this is not an air intercept missile where the target's location is uncertain and the fuselage must be 'built up' to withstand as much as 40g of lateral acceleration. An ICBM's target is usually fixed, like a city or an airbase. So there are no needs to built fuselage any more robust than what is needed to survive a launch. But once in flight, an explosion the size of a grenade can create sufficient aerodynamic disturbances to create a lateral course deviation to make the missile go out of control.

This defense, or rather offense, against the missile at its most vulnerable is the most risky because it places the defender in the same geographical region as the enemy. Logistic lines must be opened and defended for these postings to survive.

ABMs have a alot of catching up to do. The countermeasures against them are very simple to deploy, and very hard to counter.

To date, the US is only country capable of deploying ballistic missile defense AT ALL STAGES. This is not to say our methods and tactics are perfect but only to say that if our success is 50%, then the enemy's failure rate is 50%. This is not odds any general want to play with.

 

[Thomas]

SM3 - is anti-ballistic missile that cannt be used against targets like jets and cruise missiles while S-400 can be used against any kind of target and has about the same capabilities as SM3. Learn something before spouting nonsense.

The US Navy uses different missiles depending on it's intended use. SM-3 is for ballistic missiles, ESSM agianst cruise missiles and aircraft, the newest missile is the SM-6 which is an extended range missile desined to kill aircraft from 200 miles out. The Aegis system identifies the target and selects the best missile to use. It then picks the ship and fires 1 or more missile at the target depending on its trajectory.

 

[sicsheep]

Absolutely they are different. No one said otherwise.

To date, the US is only country capable of deploying ballistic missile defense AT ALL STAGES. This is not to say our methods and tactics are perfect but only to say that if our success is 50%, then the enemy's failure rate is 50%. This is not odds any general want to play with.

Exactly, like you said, the idea is to surround your potential enemy with land based PAC 3 and sea based SM 3, in order to achieve intercept at the earliest stage possible also means having a better chance. the US has been very successful at this this.

BUT, the other 50% goes to any sub based launch platform launching anywhere in the ocean. even the launch is detected by DSP satellites, it is very unlikely to shoot it down at terminal stage. not to mention stealth aircraft on patrol can also target US allies if not alaska with small cruise missiles / tactical warheads. I think the program is a waste of money, spear is always more advanced than the shield, throughout human history, since you can't design a shield for a spear that doesn't even exist yet. especially for nuclear, if it's not 100% then what's the point???

 

[Audio]

Exactly, like you said, the idea is to surround your potential enemy with land based PAC 3 and sea based SM 3, in order to achieve intercept at the earliest stage possible also means having a better chance. the US has been very successful at this this.

BUT, the other 50% goes to any sub based launch platform launching anywhere in the ocean. even the launch is detected by DSP satellites, it is very unlikely to shoot it down at terminal stage. not to mention stealth aircraft on patrol can also target US allies if not alaska with small cruise missiles / tactical warheads. I think the program is a waste of money, spear is always more advanced than the shield, throughout human history, since you can't design a shield for a spear that doesn't even exist yet. especially for nuclear, if it's not 100% then what's the point???

What stealth aircraft on patrol? Did you know Alaska was one of the first states to get F-22's?

The spear/shield argument is flawed anyway.....

as for the 100%, isnt it better to intercept half rather then none? is logical no? or your logic doesn't go there?