Why Is No One Clamoring for more ABMs to be built?

[Mushroom]

You better explain that to the Navy. They deployed Laser weapons already.

Did I say they were worthless? No, I said nothing like that.

However, their use is very limited. And like those that go on and on about rail guns, I have always believed the best for both was in a CIWS function. Their limited at range can be very limited.

 

[Mushroom]

Your last sentence is unduly pessimistic.

No, it is my being realistic. Not seeing what I want to believe, but what is most likely.

Any "space based weapons" would be extremely vulnerable, that is a fact. We were able to destroy satellites over 35 years ago, does anybody think Russia could not do the same thing today?

Spending huge amounts of money and resources on something that could be taken out in an opening salvo is foolish, better to spend it on systems that are nowhere near as vulnerable.

 

[Mushroom]

Since the Lazer has matured, what it requires is power. to date, the systems that have the power are Naval Ships (Lazer systems are already coming online), large aircraft like the AC-130 with lots of AC power, Fixed ground installations and the F-35 which has an excess of AC power.

No, that is not all it requires.

It also needs a clear field. In other words, no dust, cloud, rain, or high amounts of moisture or any particulates at all. Why do you think most experiments are done in vacuums or a "clean room"?

This is because of this thing called "thermal blooming". Any particles (from dust to water vapor) becomes super-heated, which then creates more obscuring, and a snowball effect. This is well known, and the more power the worse the blooming becomes. Power can not overcome this, in fact throwing more power only makes it worse. The Soviets discovered this decades ago as they concentrated on LASER weapons, as the US concentrated on kinetic weapons.

Oh, and it is "LASER", not "Lazer". "Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation". "Lazer" is more like some kind of science fiction weapon, like a phaser or a photon torpedo.

 

[BackAgain]

No, it is my being realistic. Not seeing what I want to believe, but what is most likely.

Any "space based weapons" would be extremely vulnerable, that is a fact. We were able to destroy satellites over 35 years ago, does anybody think Russia could not do the same thing today?

Spending huge amounts of money and resources on something that could be taken out in an opening salvo is foolish, better to spend it on systems that are nowhere near as vulnerable.

Unduly pessimistic. If it can be achieved, it can be made more cost efficient. And the firing of an energy beam doesn’t need to vaporize the missile. Punch a hole in the metal skin and make the thing a doomed piece of garbage doomed to fall, not fly.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Did I say they were worthless? No, I said nothing like that.

However, their use is very limited. And like those that go on and on about rail guns, I have always believed the best for both was in a CIWS function. Their limited at range can be very limited.

I see you are a charter member of the Society to Stamp out, Abolish, and get rid of Redundancy!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Since the Lazer has matured, what it requires is power. to date, the systems that have the power are Naval Ships (Lazer systems are already coming online), large aircraft like the AC-130 with lots of AC power, Fixed ground installations and the F-35 which has an excess of AC power.

Never say never. This is the year for the Lightning II

Vrenn, aircraft don't have AC power, They run on DC power.

 

[Mushroom]

Unduly pessimistic. If it can be achieved, it can be made more cost efficient. And the firing of an energy beam doesn’t need to vaporize the missile. Punch a hole in the metal skin and make the thing a doomed piece of garbage doomed to fall, not fly.

And once again, you miss the actual facts.

Here, let me school you for a bit. All the way back in 1985, the US was able to destroy a satellite with a missile launched from an F-15.

Now just think of the implications of that. A few hours before some country decides to nuke the US, they send out a bunch of fighters with similar weapons. BOOM, your entire "space based defense system" is gone. Why do you think the US showed it had that capability back when President Reagan was President? To show the Soviets that it could do that, and that caused them to concentrate not on space based systems, but ground based ones.

Most of Star Wars is horribly misunderstood. But in fact it was one of the greatest smokescreens in history. Making people look one way, as the real money was spent in something completely different. In this case kinetic kill capability and what became the GPS system. Yes, GPS. That was a key aspect that was needed for "Star Wars", and most completely missed it. A largely self-healing system of satellites, where even taking out 1 or 2 would degrade by not eliminate the capability of the system.

Where even the Soviets (and later Russians) did not protest that they were over their countries, as they could see the advantage of them and used them also.

And you do not have to tell me crap about what is needed to render a missile inoperable, trust me there. Take out the propulsion system, guidance system, the arming system, even do enough damage to the body itself without getting those systems and you will likely have either a dud or fizzle impacting the ground.

I am not being pessimistic,, I am being an absolute realist.

And the fact is, in the event of a war with warning, any space based system would likely be compromised before the first ICBM left the silo. Why do you think the US has been investing in ground based systems for over a decade?

 

[Mushroom]

I see you are a charter member of the Society to Stamp out, Abolish, and get rid of Redundancy!

Got me there, but the point stands.

I have long thought that things like LASER weapons and rail guns are best used as an augment to CIWS. The things that are the biggest problem with them (direct line of sight, and/or atmospheric conditions) was their biggest flaw. Rail guns can only hit what they can see, in a direct line of sight. LASERs can only operate in almost perfect visibility.

Want to destroy a ship with the top of the line LASER based defense? Simply shoot it when it is in heavy fog. All those LASERs would be absolutely useless. Rail guns? Once again, in reality very limited. A projectile between the size of a beer and coffee can, that can only travel in largely a straight line with no explosive capability. Almost perfect for CIWS, worthless for almost anything else. It can't even shoot farther than the horizon in an absolutely perfect world, just knowing basic ballistics proves that simple fact.

 

[BackAgain]

And once again, you miss the actual facts.

Here, let me school you for a bit. All the way back in 1985, the US was able to destroy a satellite with a missile launched from an F-15.

Now just think of the implications of that. A few hours before some country decides to nuke the US, they send out a bunch of fighters with similar weapons. BOOM, your entire "space based defense system" is gone. Why do you think the US showed it had that capability back when President Reagan was President? To show the Soviets that it could do that, and that caused them to concentrate not on space based systems, but ground based ones.

Most of Star Wars is horribly misunderstood. But in fact it was one of the greatest smokescreens in history. Making people look one way, as the real money was spent in something completely different. In this case kinetic kill capability and what became the GPS system. Yes, GPS. That was a key aspect that was needed for "Star Wars", and most completely missed it. A largely self-healing system of satellites, where even taking out 1 or 2 would degrade by not eliminate the capability of the system.

Where even the Soviets (and later Russians) did not protest that they were over their countries, as they could see the advantage of them and used them also.

And you do not have to tell me crap about what is needed to render a missile inoperable, trust me there. Take out the propulsion system, guidance system, the arming system, even do enough damage to the body itself without getting those systems and you will likely have either a dud or fizzle impacting the ground.

I am not being pessimistic,, I am being an absolute realist.

And the fact is, in the event of a war with warning, any space based system would likely be compromised before the first ICBM left the silo. Why do you think the US has been investing in ground based systems for over a decade?

Nice wall o’ words. But it is you who continues to miss the point. Let me correct your numerous misconceptions:

A space based defensive laser weapon system wouldn’t be the entirety of our defensive system. And anything that could target an enemy icbm in the booster phase would likely have a pretty good tracking system. Presumably it could be packaged with the capacity to protect itself, too.

You also seem highly focused on cost. And cost is a factor. I didn’t suggest it would be inexpensive. Yet, had we been working on this idea since the Reagan years, we might have been able to amortize the cost over the past 60 or years. Plus, we tend to spend much too much money on stupid shit. Maybe we could stop that and spend some on a workable adjunct to our military defensive capabilities.

 

[Mushroom]

A space based defensive laser weapon system wouldn’t be the entirety of our defensive system. And anything that could target an enemy icbm in the booster phase would likely have a pretty good tracking system. Presumably it could be packaged with the capacity to protect itself, too.

You also seem highly focused on cost. And cost is a factor. I didn’t suggest it would be inexpensive. Yet, had we been working on this idea since the Reagan years, we might have been able to amortize the cost over the past 60 or years. Plus, we tend to spend much too much money on stupid shit. Maybe we could stop that and spend some on a workable adjunct to our military defensive capabilities.

Actually, I concentrate on the vulnerability of such a system. We have ASW weapons, as do the Russians and Chinese.

And the "boost phase"? That means it has to be in place over their territory. Think about that for a few minutes. That means a satellite over Russian or Chinese territory, which they can shoot down with east shortly before launching. We could do that over 35 years ago, do you really think they can not do it now? The "tracking system" does not matter, if it was already destroyed.

Oh, and President Reagan was in office about 40 years ago, not 60. That would have been President Kennedy. There is large gap between the two.

As I said, I deal in reality, not fantasy. And the fact that you put a Presidency almost 2 decades longer than it was shows where you live. And BTW, Missile Defense is my actual background. As in, my actual job for many years. I am talking the reality of what is possible, and what is actually workable. The cost actually be damned, going back to the original OP I actually believe we need to deploy something like "AEGIS Ashore" in the US, at least to protect the 20 most vulnerable and important locations in the country.

But I believe in spending money where it can actually do some good, not in some kind of fantasy that would be destroyed before it could do anything.

 

[SavannahMann]

Did I say they were worthless? No, I said nothing like that.

However, their use is very limited. And like those that go on and on about rail guns, I have always believed the best for both was in a CIWS function. Their limited at range can be very limited.

Rail Guns use a very misunderstood force. Kinetic Energy.

A 9MM and a .38 Special or .357 Magnum use essentially the same projectile. The .357 converted to metric is 9.05MM. The weights are separated by one gram.

However the power of the .357 is significantly greater than that of the 9MM. The reason is that the .357 is traveling significantly faster.

The most powerful nuclear weapon ever detonated by man was the Tsar Bomba. It would eradicate Paris, or London, to the suburbs. The distant suburbs.

That same destructive power would be gleaned from an object weighing about two tons, traveling about Mach 20 or so.

So alloys are much cheaper than nukes. And can carry the same destructive power.

So you can see why kinetic energy is lauded. It destroyed the Shuttle Columbia. And that was just a hunk of foam. Similar to a cheap cooler you get for five bucks at Walmart. It was traveling fast enough to punch a hole in the wing.

I readily admit we don’t have the design worked out. I also admit there is a lot to research and learn. But the power of rail guns is easily imagined.

 

[BackAgain]

Actually, I concentrate on the vulnerability of such a system. We have ASW weapons, as do the Russians and Chinese.

And the "boost phase"? That means it has to be in place over their territory. Think about that for a few minutes. That means a satellite over Russian or Chinese territory, which they can shoot down with east shortly before launching. We could do that over 35 years ago, do you really think they can not do it now? The "tracking system" does not matter, if it was already destroyed.

Oh, and President Reagan was in office about 40 years ago, not 60. That would have been President Kennedy. There is large gap between the two.

As I said, I deal in reality, not fantasy. And the fact that you put a Presidency almost 2 decades longer than it was shows where you live. And BTW, Missile Defense is my actual background. As in, my actual job for many years. I am talking the reality of what is possible, and what is actually workable. The cost actually be damned, going back to the original OP I actually believe we need to deploy something like "AEGIS Ashore" in the US, at least to protect the 20 most vulnerable and important locations in the country.

But I believe in spending money where it can actually do some good, not in some kind of fantasy that would be destroyed before it could do anything.

Boost phase means wherever it’s fired from.
Your lack of understanding goes deeper than I’d thought.

 

[Mushroom]

I readily admit we don’t have the design worked out. I also admit there is a lot to research and learn. But the power of rail guns is easily imagined.

Oh, I readily admit that.

However, the main limit is that they are a direct line of sight weapon. Just like a LASER weapon. It has to have a direct line of sight, or it can't hit it. And no amount of power pumped into those technologies can ever get around those facts.

I actually see a huge advantage and capability in them in a CIWS (Close-In Weapon System) capability. Point-blank systems for ships, cities, and military bases for example. For those, I think both would be spectacular systems. But most do not seem to understand the limitations of those weapons, so create these fantasies and ignore reality.

 

[Mushroom]

Boost phase means wherever it’s fired from.

Oh, I know exactly what it means.

To target such, that means that the defensive system would have to have direct line of sight of that location. Say the Novosibirsk ICBM field. Over Russia.

What do you think would happen in the event that Russia was planning on launching nukes? I can answer that. About 30 minutes before they launch, they would sent up a MiG with an ASM, and it would be destroyed before the first ICBM left the silo.

Trust me, I have no "lack of understanding" in this area. I guess you have still completely missed that I said this was my actual job.

Care to tell me what your professional experience is in this area? And what makes you think you understand more about it than I do?

 

[BackAgain]

Oh, I know exactly what it means.

To target such, that means that the defensive system would have to have direct line of sight of that location. Say the Novosibirsk ICBM field. Over Russia.

What do you think would happen in the event that Russia was planning on launching nukes? I can answer that. About 30 minutes before they launch, they would sent up a MiG with an ASM, and it would be destroyed before the first ICBM left the silo.

Trust me, I have no "lack of understanding" in this area. I guess you have still completely missed that I said this was my actual job.

Care to tell me what your professional experience is in this area? And what makes you think you understand more about it than I do?

Yes. A line of sight. That thing a spread out array of satellites can accomplish.

 

[Mushroom]

Yes. A line of sight. That thing a spread out array of satellites can accomplish.

And you seem to be completely missing that those satellites can be easily destroyed.

You are aware that Russia used an ASM last year, are you not? Or have you already forgotten that 4 months ago even the ISS was on alert because of debris from the intercept?

Russia shooting down satellite hints at future of International Space Station. Itâs grim

While a moratorium on further testing of DA-ASAT weapons may take time, there is no reason why countries cannot start exchanging data on debris in outer space.

theprint.in

Why you continue to completely ignore this is beyond me. Even though I have made this very point over and over again. I guess the Nile is not just a river in Egypt.

 

[Vrenn]

No, that is not all it requires.

It also needs a clear field. In other words, no dust, cloud, rain, or high amounts of moisture or any particulates at all. Why do you think most experiments are done in vacuums or a "clean room"?

This is because of this thing called "thermal blooming". Any particles (from dust to water vapor) becomes super-heated, which then creates more obscuring, and a snowball effect. This is well known, and the more power the worse the blooming becomes. Power can not overcome this, in fact throwing more power only makes it worse. The Soviets discovered this decades ago as they concentrated on LASER weapons, as the US concentrated on kinetic weapons.

Oh, and it is "LASER", not "Lazer". "Light Amplification by the Stimulated Emission of Radiation". "Lazer" is more like some kind of science fiction weapon, like a phaser or a photon torpedo.

get above a certain height and you don't have any of the things you say. The more altitude you have the more efficent that a Lazer will be. The higher speed the missile or Aircraft, the higher the required altitude. If you wish to defeat a air to air radar missile drag it down to low altitude. If you want to keep the high mach speed up, get it up to 60K or higher. Most missiles like that go up when they have the most energy, tranfer at high altitude and then come down on their targets. When they are in their high transit, the lazar has zero problems with the air if it's fired from an AC above the weather layer. This means that a F-35A at an altitude of 35K will easily take out Nuke warhead in transit stage. You put enough of those loads in F-35As and you can stop a nuclear attack cold. You launch your nukes. A few minutes later, the F-35As launch. Your Nuke package may be a lot faster but it has a lot further to go.. The F-35A has to get to 25,000 feet which is above the mitigating weather affects. They should get to their respective positions about the same time. The F-35A doesn't have to actually see it's target. Ground Control can do that.

On the other side of the coin, I am sure that if the Russian believed that they needed it, they could put out a high climber with excess AC power if they thought they really needed it.

\

 

[SavannahMann]

Oh, I readily admit that.

However, the main limit is that they are a direct line of sight weapon. Just like a LASER weapon. It has to have a direct line of sight, or it can't hit it. And no amount of power pumped into those technologies can ever get around those facts.

I actually see a huge advantage and capability in them in a CIWS (Close-In Weapon System) capability. Point-blank systems for ships, cities, and military bases for example. For those, I think both would be spectacular systems. But most do not seem to understand the limitations of those weapons, so create these fantasies and ignore reality.

When I was in the Army, we learned that the Australians were using the M-60 Machine Gun for indirect fire. In other words, they were shooting at high angles and allowing the bullets to plunge downward. We had always believed that the M-60 was limited to line of sight. But the Aussies showed us it wasn’t. We didn’t spend much time worrying about it, but filed it away as something we might need in the future. The T & E mechanism allowed the Aussies to do something we had never considered.

Rail Guns like any other projectile, will drop according to the Gravitational Constant. The biggest problem isn’t the curving of the round by Gravity, but the slowing of the projectile by friction. Actually it’s two fold. The slowing, and the ablative effect from the high speed through air. Friction is a mother to ignore. I figure it is a matter of time before they coat the rounds in some sort of high temp resistant ceramic. Or they paint it with a variation of the truck bed liner that is designed to ablate away.

Either way, every bit of slowing from friction causes a massive reduction in potential impact energy.

I can see Rail Guns being used like Artillery. Long shots, similar to big cannons.

 

[Mushroom]

When I was in the Army, we learned that the Australians were using the M-60 Machine Gun for indirect fire. In other words, they were shooting at high angles and allowing the bullets to plunge downward. We had always believed that the M-60 was limited to line of sight.

Who ever told you that? Not sure what era you served, but we knew about "plunging fire" for decades.

I can only guess you were never actually trained in machine guns. "Grazing fire" is the fire that is direct line of sight, and hits targets you can see. "Plunging fire" is what we used when targets were in a "dead zone", like behind a ridge or embankment. I am sure any real Army 11B or Marine 03XX (especially an 033X)) can tell you about that.

However, do not mistake a rail gun with a weapon like the M-60. Yes, theoretically a rail gun can be fired indirectly. But remember, they have a velocity of 3.5k mps. Not all that far off from that of the M-60 at 2.8k mps. Of course, you have to take some off for things like atmospheric drag and the like.

Now it is not hard to imagine how much damage an M-60 round would do to a human body. But how much damage does it do to a bunker, or tank? Not damned much damage. And how much damage will a non-explosive rail gun projectile do against such a target? If there is a more inefficient way to kill a soft target like troops than with a rail gun, I have absolutely no idea what it is.

Of course, I also know that the Army is somewhat "retarded" in what the capabilities of weapons are (and do not get bent out of shape, I was in the Army for over 12 years). But in the Marines, we were trained that even the M16A1 had an effective range of over 500 meters. But even today, the Army is taught that the effective range of the M16A2 and later weapons is still 350 meters. This has nothing to do with the weapon itself, but the capabilities of those who use them. I was even surprised when I tried to explain how to use plunging fire to a bunch of soldiers in 2008, and they looked at me like I was on drugs. None of them had ever been trained to do such a thing.

 

[Mushroom]

I can see Rail Guns being used like Artillery. Long shots, similar to big cannons.

And I see them as most effective in a CIWS role. Like SHORAD, or the CIWS weapons on a ship.

Point-blank defense, when the distance to the target is close, and direct line of sight. Not like artillery at all, as the rail gun round is not explosive at all.