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

[Big Bend Texas]

We have what? 50 ABMs? A serious attack by Russia or China would involve launching at least 1,000 ICBMs/SLBMs. To deal with that scale of attack we need at least 10,000 ABMs ready to go.

Where on earth are you getting such numbers?

 

[Big Bend Texas]

The Russians don't have anywhere near those numbers. Neither do the Chinese.

With a 60bn dollar total defense budget that would be an impossibility.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Mostly, it all comes down to cost.

Right now, we have 2 real ABM systems that work, and have been fielded. One if the variations of the GBM-GBI system, that is based out of Alaska and California. Those are very accurate, but only cover a relatively small area and have a limited number of missiles they can fire.

The other is the AEGIS SM-3 system. This is a working system, and we only installed that system in Poland and Romania in the form of "Aegis Ashore". That could be rolled out and deployed in the US, in much the same way the earlier NIKE system was deployed in the 1960s. But I can't see anybody wanting to spend the money for that to happen. Each installation would cost in the neighborhood of $3-4 billion, not including the cost to create a training facility and to train all those to operate it.

If we had the political will, we could have a system in operation in only a year or so. But we are still living in a "Post-Cold War" climate, and nobody wants to consider the costs of putting such a system into place. Or the large increase this would mandate for the Army. Figure each installation would requite a Battalion of ADA, that is around 300-500 people per installation. Even putting it only around the 15 most populous sites in the country, that is more than double the entire size of the ADA branch at this time. And figure a cost of around $200 billion plus.

Fortunately while the situation in Ukraine is going to have to necessarily cause a significant increase in defense spending across all of the western nations, the days of the blank check for the Pentagon from the cold war era are over.

We'll do our share and address our biggest threats but Europe is finally awake and realizes we're just not going to carry the ball for them anymore without them at least doing their part.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

Which are pure bullshit.

Fact is, the US never seriously looked into them because of the obvious limitations. One of the reasons the US "won" this contest back in the 1980's is that the Soviets went all in for researching "LASERs", while the US was really researching kinetic kill weapons. Which is how it is really done today in the real world.

Want a simple two word answer as to why "leasers and energy weapons" will never be able to do this? Simple, here you go.

Thermal Blooming.

The US knew that, and still does some playing in this area. But every serious system since the 1980's has always been of a kinetic kill variety. PATRIOT, THAAD, SM-2, SM-3, GBI, the list just goes on and on. Sure, amateurs that know nothing of any of the limitations talk about super lasers knocking missiles out of the sky like something out of an Austin Powers movie. But real professionals that know the limitations talk about kinetic kill vehicles.

So you can bring it up all you want, I really do not care. Thermal blooming will mean that that will always be a dead end.

Both energy weapons and railgun tech are being pursued ardently.

The US successfully tested a laser weapon that can destroy aircraft mid-flight | CNN

A US Navy warship has successfully tested a new high-energy laser weapon that can destroy aircraft mid-flight, the Navy's Pacific Fleet said in a statement Friday.

www.cnn.com

Technical problems with the rail gun have it on the back burner for now apparently waiting on some developments in materials and tech but the Laser is advancing rapidly.

US Army developing world's most powerful laser weapon for a 'future battlefield'

The U.S. Army is building the world’s most powerful laser weapon, capable of vaporizing targets and interrupting adversaries’ technology signals. The

americanmilitarynews.com

 

[Dayton3]

No, neither russia nor the US can afford doing that at over 4 mil a copy. You would need hundreds of thousands of them strategically prepositioned across the globe. MADD does the job along with economics.

You wouldnt need "hundreds of thousands" of Sm-6s just to take down 2,000 or so incoming nuclear missiles. Most likely 4-5,000 would do the trick.

 

[Dayton3]

With a 60bn dollar total defense budget that would be an impossibility.

No one (in the west and almost no Russians) actually knows how much the Russians actually spend on their military.

 

[Dayton3]

Where on earth are you getting such numbers?

I'm taking the total estimated numbers of Russian ICBMs and SLBMs and multiplying them by the likeliest MIRV warhead loadouts.

 

[Vrenn]

You wouldnt need "hundreds of thousands" of Sm-6s just to take down 2,000 or so incoming nuclear missiles. Most likely 4-5,000 would do the trick.

You would need to have those missiles pre positioned and the ICMBs would have to cooperate. With the mobile Russian Missiles that just won't happen. Russia is just too large and Russia uses that to their advantage. It's easier for Russia to field ABMs effectively than it is for the US,

 

[bodecea]

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?

Are ABMs strategic?

 

[Dayton3]

Are ABMs strategic?

In this context yes.

 

[Dayton3]

You would need to have those missiles pre positioned and the ICMBs would have to cooperate. With the mobile Russian Missiles that just won't happen. Russia is just too large and Russia uses that to their advantage. It's easier for Russia to field ABMs effectively than it is for the US,

Even mobile missiles have to be fired from predictable locations. Otherwise their guidance can't be properly programmed.

 

[Vrenn]

Even mobile missiles have to be fired from predictable locations. Otherwise their guidance can't be properly programmed.

When you are dealing with the largest country in the world by a huge margin, that's a lot of territory that you can program. You keep digging that hole.

 

[Dayton3]

When you are dealing with the largest country in the world by a huge margin, that's a lot of territory that you can program. You keep digging that hole.

You know all Russia mobile ICBMs are kept on a base at a well known location unless they have an alert don't you?

 

[Vrenn]

You know all Russia mobile ICBMs are kept on a base at a well known location unless they have an alert don't you?

And then they are mobilized across Russia to some undisclosed location by rail and road. Plus, you are leaving out the SLBMs. Both them and us will get these through almost 100% since ABMs will be pretty worthless. It's a very big ocean.

Shall we keep going?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Even mobile missiles have to be fired from predictable locations. Otherwise their guidance can't be properly programmed.

Where did you get that silly idea? Missile submarines update their position just prior to launch. It takes only seconds.

 

[Dayton3]

Where did you get that silly idea? Missile submarines update their position just prior to launch. It takes only seconds.

You are correct. My apologies.

 

[Dayton3]

And then they are mobilized across Russia to some undisclosed location by rail and road. Plus, you are leaving out the SLBMs. Both them and us will get these through almost 100% since ABMs will be pretty worthless. It's a very big ocean.

Why would ABMs be worthless against SLBMs?

 

[Vrenn]

Why would ABMs be worthless against SLBMs?

 

[Dayton3]

stupid emoticons such as that are not a serious answer. I can assume you don't have one then.

 

[Vrenn]

stupid emoticons such as that are not a serious answer. I can assume you don't have one then.

Give me a serious question and I'll give you a serious answer. So far, you have neglected to do so. So you get.