|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,755
Campfire Tracker
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,755 |
I was watching Rocky's post about a missile launch and it got me to wondering. How good are we at intercepting and terminating a missile flight, for example, one launched by North Korea aimed in our direction? I assume we have some capability but that it isn't doesn't have a high kill probability.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 151,008
Campfire Savant
|
|
Campfire Savant
Joined: Apr 2011
Posts: 151,008 |
Bend over, kiss you azz goodbyeby
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 6,168
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 6,168 |
The Navy's Aegis ships have the capacity, but I can't say I place much reliance on it.
The collection of taxes which are not absolutely required, which do not beyond reasonable doubt contribute to public welfare, is only a species of legalized larceny. Under this Republic the rewards of industry belong to those who earn them. Coolidge
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 7,843
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 7,843 |
What ever happened to Reagan's Star Wars project?
"Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem."
Ronald Reagan
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,198
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,198 |
Google 49th Missile Defense Battalion, Ft Greely AK. Ground based interceptor location.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321 |
Everything the general public knows about America's military capabilities is outdated.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 27,091
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 27,091 |
The one in Israel is pretty good. And we give it to them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,639
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,639 |
Patriot Missile system.. Scud busters..
Last edited by CEJ1895; 12/05/16.
Speak softly and use a big bore...
Where's El Cid when we need him...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,483
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 5,483 |
Google 49th Missile Defense Battalion, Ft Greely AK. Ground based interceptor location. ^^^^^^^^^THIS^^^^^^^^
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 29,799
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 29,799 |
If they told us, they'd have to shoot us.
1Minute
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 31,220
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 31,220 |
No system is going to stop them all. There isn't even a system that will stop all airplanes from getting through.
But it's better to stop all you can.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 16,610
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 16,610 |
I was watching Rocky's post about a missile launch and it got me to wondering. How good are we at intercepting and terminating a missile flight, for example, one launched by North Korea aimed in our direction? I assume we have some capability but that it isn't doesn't have a high kill probability. I was actually part of the ballistic missile defense project a few years ago as the Combat Systems Officer on a guided missile Cruiser. During that time, we launched 2 exo-atmospheric projective missile from our ship at Minuteman missiles. The issue with ship launch systems is the range. The best you can expect from a ship is a theater ballistic missile intercept, not an intercontinental ballistic missile intercept. The other limitation is that the ship would pretty much need to be at or near right under the path of the missile. Trying to hit a target going mach 5+ in a crossing or chasing geometry isn't going to happen. Land based systems allow you to have a lot bigger and longer range intercepts, but the physics challenge of chasing down such a high altitude and high speed target doesn't go away. We may be able to guess where the source of launch is, but the land target could be anywhere in a 1,500 mile range. The other lesser understood challenge is that at the altitudes of intercept expected, the atmosphere is so thin that explosive destruction of the target is not reliable. There just isn't enough air to give the shock wave enough kinetic energy to kill a traget that so hardened it can survive orbit re-entry. So most of these weapons are designed with kinetic kill vehicles that are ejected and attempt a skin to skin hit- very difficult to do. If I told you any more, I'd have to kill you 
"Hey jackass, get your government off my freedom."
MOLON LABE
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,584
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,584 |
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 57,474
Campfire Kahuna
|
|
Campfire Kahuna
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 57,474 |
Google 49th Missile Defense Battalion, Ft Greely AK. Ground based interceptor location. I hope they are good. I smile every time we drive by the base!
We can keep Larry Root and all his idiotic blabber and user names on here, but we can't get Ralph back..... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321
Campfire Oracle
|
|
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 79,321 |
I think the big problem is quantity. The intercontinental missiles that the major powers use these days are essentially nuclear cluster bombs. They have to be hit before they release their payload or instead of having one target, you've got 20.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,584
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,584 |
Exactly right hence, the argument of building it, WHEN IT INVOLVED THE SOVIETS with thousands of warheads. For Rogue nations like N Korea and Iran, it's a very doable option. Personally I favor invasion..
A good principle to guide me through life: “This is all I have come to expect, standard lackluster performance. Trust nothing, believe no one and realize it will only get worse…”
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,755
Campfire Tracker
|
|
OP
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,755 |
Thanks guys, I knew if I asked here that there would be someone with real knowledge. That's why I keep coming to the fire.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 29,786
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 29,786 |
Exactly right hence, the argument of building it, WHEN IT INVOLVED THE SOVIETS with thousands of warheads. For Rogue nations like N Korea and Iran, it's a very doable option. Personally I favor invasion.. Jorge, the moment you get all your troops on the ground in North Korea the mad bastards would let everything they have go at once just to get up your nose, and hang the consequence. And the people there are so indoctrinated they would stand in line to watch the current dill in charge press the button. As for Iran, we can only hope they are silly enough to press the wrong button on a test run when shewing obama what his dollar purchased.
These are my opinions, feel free to disagree.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,638
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 4,638 |
I was watching Rocky's post about a missile launch and it got me to wondering. How good are we at intercepting and terminating a missile flight, for example, one launched by North Korea aimed in our direction? I assume we have some capability but that it isn't doesn't have a high kill probability. I was actually part of the ballistic missile defense project a few years ago as the Combat Systems Officer on a guided missile Cruiser. During that time, we launched 2 exo-atmospheric projective missile from our ship at Minuteman missiles. The issue with ship launch systems is the range. The best you can expect from a ship is a theater ballistic missile intercept, not an intercontinental ballistic missile intercept. The other limitation is that the ship would pretty much need to be at or near right under the path of the missile. Trying to hit a target going mach 5+ in a crossing or chasing geometry isn't going to happen. Land based systems allow you to have a lot bigger and longer range intercepts, but the physics challenge of chasing down such a high altitude and high speed target doesn't go away. We may be able to guess where the source of launch is, but the land target could be anywhere in a 1,500 mile range. The other lesser understood challenge is that at the altitudes of intercept expected, the atmosphere is so thin that explosive destruction of the target is not reliable. There just isn't enough air to give the shock wave enough kinetic energy to kill a traget that so hardened it can survive orbit re-entry. So most of these weapons are designed with kinetic kill vehicles that are ejected and attempt a skin to skin hit- very difficult to do. If I told you any more, I'd have to kill you Would it be possible to mobilize fighter jets to shoot one down?
I probably hit more elk with a pickup than you have with a rifle. I have yet to see anyone claim Leupold has never had to fix an optic. I know I have sent a few back. 2 MK 6s, a VX-6, and 3 VX-111s.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,697
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 10,697 |
I was watching Rocky's post about a missile launch and it got me to wondering. How good are we at intercepting and terminating a missile flight, for example, one launched by North Korea aimed in our direction? I assume we have some capability but that it isn't doesn't have a high kill probability. I was actually part of the ballistic missile defense project a few years ago as the Combat Systems Officer on a guided missile Cruiser. During that time, we launched 2 exo-atmospheric projective missile from our ship at Minuteman missiles. The issue with ship launch systems is the range. The best you can expect from a ship is a theater ballistic missile intercept, not an intercontinental ballistic missile intercept. The other limitation is that the ship would pretty much need to be at or near right under the path of the missile. Trying to hit a target going mach 5+ in a crossing or chasing geometry isn't going to happen. Land based systems allow you to have a lot bigger and longer range intercepts, but the physics challenge of chasing down such a high altitude and high speed target doesn't go away. We may be able to guess where the source of launch is, but the land target could be anywhere in a 1,500 mile range. The other lesser understood challenge is that at the altitudes of intercept expected, the atmosphere is so thin that explosive destruction of the target is not reliable. There just isn't enough air to give the shock wave enough kinetic energy to kill a traget that so hardened it can survive orbit re-entry. So most of these weapons are designed with kinetic kill vehicles that are ejected and attempt a skin to skin hit- very difficult to do. If I told you any more, I'd have to kill you Would it be possible to mobilize fighter jets to shoot one down? Mach 5+ in the stratosphere - ummm, no on the fighter jets. Best just blow them to hell on the launch pad.
A true sportsman counts his achievements in proportion to the effort involved and fairness of the sport. - S. Pope
|
|
|
|
|
121 members (69sportfury, 300jimmy, 338reddog, 2500HD, 3333vl, 14 invisible),
1,291
guests, and
855
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,190,718
Posts18,457,126
Members73,909
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
