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

[BackAgain]

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.

Anything can be destroyed and whether or not it can be done “easily” depends on its location, weaknesses and defenses. You ignored the very caveats I included.

 

[SavannahMann]

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.

I didn’t explain it correctly. And for the record to restate what I’ve said before. I was a 12B2P.

I’m talking about indirect fire. Not plunging fire. I’m talking about greater than 2K ranges. Plunging fire is used when you are firing into a depression. Indirect fire is when you can’t see the target area and are adjusting by spotter. That is what the Aussies were doing.

 

[Mushroom]

Anything can be destroyed and whether or not it can be done “easily” depends on its location, weaknesses and defenses. You ignored the very caveats I included.

"Location". As you mentioned during boost phase, that means it would have to be over the launching nation, like Russia. Seems that would make it pretty easy for Russia to destroy.

Defenses? Sure, why not put in space hamsters that go for the eyes while you are at it.

I ignore your "caveats" because they are pointless, and not a single one can be taken seriously.

 

[Mushroom]

I’m talking about indirect fire. Not plunging fire. I’m talking about greater than 2K ranges. Plunging fire is used when you are firing into a depression. Indirect fire is when you can’t see the target area and are adjusting by spotter. That is what the Aussies were doing.

Which can be done with any weapon. But the accuracy is crappy, and you will need somebody to walk it onto target. And you had better have ammo to kill in order to do that.

Just about any weapon can be fired indirectly. Hell, it took centuries for even artillery to become indirect fire weapons. And why I laugh every time I see some renaissance period piece with exploding artillery. Artillery did not really become an indirect fire weapon until after the US Civil War. Not only because of the limitation of the crude fire control of the era, but lack of explosive shells meant that the use of such was extremely limited at best.

 

[BackAgain]

"Location". As you mentioned during boost phase, that means it would have to be over the launching nation, like Russia. Seems that would make it pretty easy for Russia to destroy.

Defenses? Sure, why not put in space hamsters that go for the eyes while you are at it.

I ignore your "caveats" because they are pointless, and not a single one can be taken seriously.

You’re absolutely wrong, of course. To “see” the launch — including the boost phase — the satellite would NOT have to be “over” that nation (or over that small portion of the oceans). You are simply wrong.

Uiu ignored only that for which you can’t offer even one of your erroneous answers.

 

[whitehall]

Build or deploy? Nobody clammers for weapons to be built. We leave it to the military and the politicians.

 

[Mushroom]

You’re absolutely wrong, of course. To “see” the launch — including the boost phase — the satellite would NOT have to be “over” that nation (or over that small portion of the oceans). You are simply wrong.

What, you think they can magically look over the horizon?

And you are talking about intercepting them in that phase. How are they going to do that if they are not in a position to do so?

But go ahead, I really don't care as you obviously think it all works off of happy thoughts and unicorn dandruff.

 

[BackAgain]

What, you think they can magically look over the horizon?

And you are talking about intercepting them in that phase. How are they going to do that if they are not in a position to do so?

But go ahead, I really don't care as you obviously think it all works off of happy thoughts and unicorn dandruff.

No, you idiot. But they can be linked. And from a high enough vantage point, the area covered means that you don’t necessarily have to be overhead to see a launch further away. Damn,kid. These concepts aren’t all that difficult.

The particular satellite that spies a missile launch in its boost phase doesn’t necessarily have to be the satellite that shoots the laser at the target. You might want to think a bit more theee dimensionally.

Your very limited knowledge and your pathetic ability to think combine to make your arguments quite laughable. Go blow a unicorn.

 

[Mushroom]

The particular satellite that spies a missile launch in its boost phase doesn’t necessarily have to be the satellite that shoots the laser at the target. You might want to think a bit more theee dimensionally.

How are you going to shoot down an ICBM in the boost phase, if the satellite to do so is not almost directly overhead?

And BTW, are you aware that is only a period of 3 to 5 minutes? How are you even going to detect it, do the checks to ensure it is an actual ICBM and not just a test launch, accident, or something else? And then somehow magically get the authorization to fire the shot, and actually make it (with time to intercept)? But somehow, you think that can all be done in 3 to 5 minutes. Because trust me, nobody is going to authorize a weapon launch of any kind over a missile that is still over foreign airspace. That kind of order would have to come from the President, and it would be impossible to get that authorization in time.

No, I am discussing facts. I know you do not need to be overhead to detect it, but which are you talking about? Because you were talking about shooting one down, not detecting it. But guess what, you are still not going to see it launch from over the horizon. Period, there is this thing called the Earth in the way, until it gains enough altitude to no longer be obscured by the planet. Or are you a flat earther, that thinks there is no horizon?

This is why all intercept systems use the mid-course correction phase or the terminal phase to do their interception. To be absolutely honest, there is absolutely no way to catch a missile at launch. And when you talk about "boost phase", that is exactly what you are saying.

And anything that could target an enemy icbm in the booster phase would likely have a pretty good tracking system.

Remember that? That is where your claims jumped completely off the rails, and you have been spinning in circles ever since, apparently not able to keep observation and tracking with interception. You say A, I respond to that, then you spin on to B. I go back to A, and you return to B all over again.

You do not even know the terminology, you can not keep track of what part of flight is being discussed, or much of anything else. Even the SDI program of the 1980's was never intended to shoot them in the "booster phase" as you call it, it was always to target later when it was in freefall during it's travel and before it entered the terminal phase.

And please tell me, how do I think "theee dimensionally"?

 

[BackAgain]

How are you going to shoot down an ICBM in the boost phase, if the satellite to do so is not almost directly overhead?

And BTW, are you aware that is only a period of 3 to 5 minutes? How are you even going to detect it, do the checks to ensure it is an actual ICBM and not just a test launch, accident, or something else? And then somehow magically get the authorization to fire the shot, and actually make it (with time to intercept)? But somehow, you think that can all be done in 3 to 5 minutes. Because trust me, nobody is going to authorize a weapon launch of any kind over a missile that is still over foreign airspace. That kind of order would have to come from the President, and it would be impossible to get that authorization in time.

No, I am discussing facts. I know you do not need to be overhead to detect it, but which are you talking about? Because you were talking about shooting one down, not detecting it. But guess what, you are still not going to see it launch from over the horizon. Period, there is this thing called the Earth in the way, until it gains enough altitude to no longer be obscured by the planet. Or are you a flat earther, that thinks there is no horizon?

This is why all intercept systems use the mid-course correction phase or the terminal phase to do their interception. To be absolutely honest, there is absolutely no way to catch a missile at launch. And when you talk about "boost phase", that is exactly what you are saying.



Remember that? That is where your claims jumped completely off the rails, and you have been spinning in circles ever since, apparently not able to keep observation and tracking with interception. You say A, I respond to that, then you spin on to B. I go back to A, and you return to B all over again.

You do not even know the terminology, you can not keep track of what part of flight is being discussed, or much of anything else. Even the SDI program of the 1980's was never intended to shoot them in the "booster phase" as you call it, it was always to target later when it was in freefall during it's travel and before it entered the terminal phase.

And please tell me, how do I think "theee dimensionally"?

You seem quite agitated. I think I can help. Go take a fuckin’ nap.

Cutting through all your hyperventilation would take effort. I’ve already stayed up too late. So, I guess I’ll leave it to the folks responsible for national defense to work it all out. Maybe you should, too. It’s all clearly way the fuck over your head and pay grade.

Thinking three dimensionally isn’t all that hard. Of course it does require thinking, so you’re off to a rocky start. But stop thinking left and right and forward and back. Start tossing in a little up and down.

I’m telling you for a fact. It works.

 

[Mushroom]

Thinking three dimensionally isn’t all that hard. Of course it does require thinking, so you’re off to a rocky start. But stop thinking left and right and forward and back. Start tossing in a little up and down.

I’m telling you for a fact. It works.

I do think that way. Once again, this was my actual freaking job. I know exactly what I am talking about, you spin in circles, fail to address any meaningful points, and just cry that I am not thinking "three dimensionally".

However, I am. Notice how I keep mentioning things like horizon? You can not see anything past the curve of the Earth until it moves above the horizon. Something you seem to miss every single time.

But once again, I novice you ignore anything you can not answer, then scream I do not understand anything. Typical troll behavior.

 

[BackAgain]

I do think that way. Once again, this was my actual freaking job. I know exactly what I am talking about, you spin in circles, fail to address any meaningful points, and just cry that I am not thinking "three dimensionally".

However, I am. Notice how I keep mentioning things like horizon? You can not see anything past the curve of the Earth until it moves above the horizon. Something you seem to miss every single time.

But once again, I novice you ignore anything you can not answer, then scream I do not understand anything. Typical troll behavior.

You mentioning “horizon” doesn’t have fuck all to do with your hollow claims about yourself. If you ever manage to cobble together an actual thought in a coherent manner, I’ve always been willing, ready and able to address whatever it is you incorrectly assume you’ve “said.” Your incoherence tends to get in the way.

Your arrogance is amusing. But your lack of substance makes you uninteresting. Work on that. Say something clear, coherent and reasonably intelligent. I’ll wait.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

\

Why do you keep saying AC power? Aircraft do not have AC power!

 

[Vrenn]

I do think that way. Once again, this was my actual freaking job. I know exactly what I am talking about, you spin in circles, fail to address any meaningful points, and just cry that I am not thinking "three dimensionally".

However, I am. Notice how I keep mentioning things like horizon? You can not see anything past the curve of the Earth until it moves above the horizon. Something you seem to miss every single time.

But once again, I novice you ignore anything you can not answer, then scream I do not understand anything. Typical troll behavior.

Most Radar has a finite distance even before it reaches the curvature of the earth. Let's use the Naval Radar. It has a much longer reach than ground does. And because of power, it has a longer range than anything short of an EC type. But the EC type doesn't have near the output power so it gets a longer distance and power rating than the Naval because it's curvature of the earth is much further. But even it can only see so far.

One of the wonderful things the F-35B and C brings to the Navy is it's ability to link up with and extend the naval radar. While the Naval radar attack may only be able to do around 90 to 100 miles max, the F-35 gives it an extended range. Just because a missile has a range of 550 miles doesn't mean it can hit anything past 80 to 100 miles because the naval radar can't see past that for something on the water. And as the bad guy goes up in altitude, he may also be picked up by the naval radar but it's all determined by the curvature of the earth. Radar has one hell of a time looking through mother Earth. Now, put a F-35 or an EA-18G at 35K altitude and about 250 miles away from the radar station and you just made it to somewhere around 500 miles. But unlike the naval radar at 90miles, the F-35 Radar doesn't have any advantages with Stealth.

Now, about hitting something in the boost stage, using a NYC slang "Fergetaboutit". Even though our Sats will see it, we would have only a couple or 3 minutes to get something in position and fire it. Not enough time for a firing solution. North Korea doesn't count as we already have the ABM loaded Ships in place to back it during the ascent phase.

Russia and China are different animals. We can't see their missiles except by our Sats which can't track nor lockon to the missiles during the ascent phase. We would be dealing with those in the descent and terminal phase. The only places that will be protected will be those with a saturation of ABMs or those places where the ICMBs malfunctioned. Or areas outside of the target areas. So you stopped 50% of them and another 25% malfunctioned. Considering 2 warheads per target means the malfunction rate is worthless. That means that if Russia launches an initial 1000 500 are going to get through. Then Russia assesses things and decides whether to launch the other 1000 which 750 (not the attrition rate comes into play) will get through and there are no longer any ABM assets to prevent them.

The United States will play the old "Use 'em or Lose 'em". In this exchange, The US is clearly the least loser. There are no winners.

 

[Mushroom]

That means that if Russia launches an initial 1000 500 are going to get through.

To begin with, Russia has nowhere near enough missiles to do that. Their entire inventory of ICBMs is between 500 and 600. And their entire nuclear arsenal is around 1,600 warheads.

And while our aircraft can link up with the RADAR of other systems (including AWAC), it is still at an early stage, and it is not always that simple. Because a lot also has to do with the kind of weapon fired. Only a few can handle being "handed off" to another system for tracking. And for seeing at a distance, airborne RADAR is always superior to ground based, other than they are naturally of a lower power.

But the "Holy Grail" of ABM defense has been to find a way to target them in the mid-phase aspect of their flight. Once they achieve their maximum velocity and altitude, and are coasting until they enter their terminal phase.

But ultimately, I try to explain RADAR as having super eyes. It really is a direct line of sight tool. If it could not see something because of a physical obstruction, it will never see it. This is the thing to me that always kills the Chinese DF-21D. They claim they can sink carriers out to extreme distances, well outside of any ground or even air based RADAR. They talk about some kind of magical RADAR that sees over the horizon with enough detail to identify a specific ship, but they have yet been able to explain how, or to show that such a capability even exists.

 

[Vrenn]

To begin with, Russia has nowhere near enough missiles to do that. Their entire inventory of ICBMs is between 500 and 600. And their entire nuclear arsenal is around 1,600 warheads.

I was giving them the benefit. And you left out the nuke subs which will almost impossible to intercept in time.

And while our aircraft can link up with the RADAR of other systems (including AWAC), it is still at an early stage, and it is not always that simple. Because a lot also has to do with the kind of weapon fired. Only a few can handle being "handed off" to another system for tracking. And for seeing at a distance, airborne RADAR is always superior to ground based, other than they are naturally of a lower power.

Enter the Block 4 F-35. But I don't see the F-35 having enough power to track an ICBM all the way through it's 3 phases. When they used the F-15 to bag that Sat, it was a ship that tracked and guided the missile in for the kill. But unlike a Warhead, they knew exactly where to look and stationed the ship accordingly before hand.

But the "Holy Grail" of ABM defense has been to find a way to target them in the mid-phase aspect of their flight. Once they achieve their maximum velocity and altitude, and are coasting until they enter their terminal phase.

But ultimately, I try to explain RADAR as having super eyes. It really is a direct line of sight tool. If it could not see something because of a physical obstruction, it will never see it. This is the thing to me that always kills the Chinese DF-21D. They claim they can sink carriers out to extreme distances, well outside of any ground or even air based RADAR. They talk about some kind of magical RADAR that sees over the horizon with enough detail to identify a specific ship, but they have yet been able to explain how, or to show that such a capability even exists.

I don't remember where I read it but it was estimated that there had to be 10 things that had to be right to hit that carrier with the DF-21D. Break the chain in any one of the ten and you the worlds fastest paperweight.

 

[DarthTrader]

Ever since the Russians invaded Ukraine we've had people talking about the possibility of the U.S.(and NATO) getting involved in a shooting war with the Russians and how that would inevitably lead to a strategic nuclear exchange.

If people really believe that then why aren't they clamoring for the U.S. to deploy thousands of more ABMs? I know most ABMs do not successfully intercept their targets but then again most missiles fired at airborne targets don't hit them. Still even at current interception rates if you launch 10 ABMs at an incoming missile the odds are you will stop it.

So why is no one mentioning ABMs?

ABMs don't work.

First off, the countermeasures by ICBMs are way more advanced than you probably realize. Because it's in space they have giant inflatable metallic balloons that just deploy by the dozens. From thousands of missiles that "chaffe-like" decoy will blot out any targeting system period. So that eliminates the use of kinetic interceptors.

ICBMs also wobble, not as maneuverable as hypersonics, but enough that your ABM probably will miss rendezvous by a few hundred miles.

Until in the atmosphere there's really no way that a nuclear-tipped ABM will be effective, but those could work, but you're essentially opting for EMP and massive atomspheric detonations in a last ditch effort to save the surface.

Even then, most of the atmosphere is below 200,000 feet. So that's 6.6 seconds until impact. How will your ABM system "loiter" long enough to detonate a nuke at an altitude sufficient enough to cause overpressure sufficient to damage incoming nuclear warheads?

It's a little irrelevant that the warhead is deflected, it must be destroyed to avoid partial or complete detonation.

Deflecting something 6seconds from impacting LA still...impacts LA, it just misses ground zero by a few miles.

Let's see what else....

You can't hit the ICBMs on launch so there's no "kill" in the first phase.

You definitely can't hit them in mid-range.

So that leaves the 2nd phase as it ascends into partial orbit, or last phase as it reenters.

We talked about the last phase....

The 2nd phase has been super difficult to achieve, but is what we claim to have in place against North Korea, it could work, but any meaningful Nuclear threat actor will have thousands of intermediate ranged ballistic missiles for this purpose. Just shoot those at the "defenders" and either the defenders waste their ammo on the attack or die....either way you get a clear shot.

 

[DarthTrader]

To begin with, Russia has nowhere near enough missiles to do that. Their entire inventory of ICBMs is between 500 and 600. And their entire nuclear arsenal is around 1,600 warheads.

And while our aircraft can link up with the RADAR of other systems (including AWAC), it is still at an early stage, and it is not always that simple. Because a lot also has to do with the kind of weapon fired. Only a few can handle being "handed off" to another system for tracking. And for seeing at a distance, airborne RADAR is always superior to ground based, other than they are naturally of a lower power.

But the "Holy Grail" of ABM defense has been to find a way to target them in the mid-phase aspect of their flight. Once they achieve their maximum velocity and altitude, and are coasting until they enter their terminal phase.

But ultimately, I try to explain RADAR as having super eyes. It really is a direct line of sight tool. If it could not see something because of a physical obstruction, it will never see it. This is the thing to me that always kills the Chinese DF-21D. They claim they can sink carriers out to extreme distances, well outside of any ground or even air based RADAR. They talk about some kind of magical RADAR that sees over the horizon with enough detail to identify a specific ship, but they have yet been able to explain how, or to show that such a capability even exists.

You're completely wrong about Russia's missile inventory and I don't know where you got that from.

Once they are in mid-phase they have already released their decoys which as I mentioned elsewhere are essentially massive metallic balloons. You won't be able to target that.

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/dryden/pdf/87913main_H-1095.pdf

I'm not going to really break down the full scope of that document but it's the best "declassified analogue" we can get and long story short, reentry heat shields, beryllium based, do not reflect well to radar energy. Thus I'm going to go ahead and assume that the radar cross section of a ballistic warhead is actually probably the size of a gnat. (Similar to stealth bombers publicly stated capabilities).

This is why the early warning systems are so massive and high energy. They NEED to see very fast moving gnats. And they can basically tell you there is a swarm of gnats coming at you, but they can't tell you where they are....

 

[DarthTrader]

No US missile defense system proven capable against ‘realistic’ ICBM threats: Study​

The facts remains that you can stop the ICBMs if you present 10 to to 1 ratio but you have to place them exactly the right place at the right time. It has to be perfect. Meaning, you can't stop the ICBMs until the energy weapons like Lazers with enough power and numbers are put into service. Maybe in 10 years time but not today.

Regarding lasers, any heat shield able to absorb the energy of re-entering the atmosphere can easily absorb the tickle of a little laser.

 

[DarthTrader]

I was giving them the benefit. And you left out the nuke subs which will almost impossible to intercept in time.



Enter the Block 4 F-35. But I don't see the F-35 having enough power to track an ICBM all the way through it's 3 phases. When they used the F-15 to bag that Sat, it was a ship that tracked and guided the missile in for the kill. But unlike a Warhead, they knew exactly where to look and stationed the ship accordingly before hand.




I don't remember where I read it but it was estimated that there had to be 10 things that had to be right to hit that carrier with the DF-21D. Break the chain in any one of the ten and you the worlds fastest paperweight.

I watched a fascinating lecture from the architect of the new Ford class Carrier and the US determines that you need about 600 ballistic missiles to destroy the ABM defense systems of a Carrier Strike Group. These are not ICBMs, but the theater type ballistic missiles, very different.

Hypersonics may change that calculus somewhat...but probably not by much. Over the horizon radar means that hypersonics are still visible and trackable and since they are lighting-up plasma arcs like christmas trees they probably have amazing radar cross sections, unlike the ICBM counter parts which don't light up until the last bit of the reentry process.

Anyway, the US decided that by adding the MQ-Stingray we can double our operational range and reduce the amount of in-atmosphere-ballistics that China can throw at a carrier group.....I don't recall the numbers but it was substantial. Something like the survivability of one CSG goes up 20x.

And that's if China can see the CSG, they don't have aerial AWACs that can operate from their own CSGs and outside of south china sea unopposed. So basically we can command the fog of war.