• Monday, August 10, 2020

US missile Defense Shield !!!

Discussion in 'Military Forum' started by Nihat, Dec 5, 2008.

  1. Nihat

    Nihat FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    511
    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Ratings:
    +0 / 175 / -0
    CNN.com

    Does anyone believe in the US hype , can they really have achieved that cutting edge technology to shield from any hostile incoming missile or maybe multiple warheads along with Fakes heading in the same direction.











    P.S. - Please don't use flames and comparisons from teenage war mongers , can we have a techo-centric discussion , otherwise , please no one bother to Reply.

    Thanks !!
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  2. nitesh

    nitesh SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    3,261
    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Ratings:
    +0 / 314 / -0
    Intercepting a missile depends on a lot of factors the most crucial ones being the time to react. It includes that you should be able to calculate the path. today's missiles are made maneuverable keeping intercepts in mind. Plus the MIRV makes the task more difficult hence no body can guarantee a 100% kill. Hence multiple tires of missile defense shield are needed. And some low level quick reaction missiles which can hit the MIRV if it is able to get released from the original missiles.

    Just my 2 cents
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2008
  3. TruthSeeker

    TruthSeeker PDF THINK TANK: ANALYST

    Messages:
    6,013
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2008
    Ratings:
    +5 / 6,143 / -1
    Country:
    United States
    Location:
    United States
    Also, the R&D spending on the US missile defense program may have fallout for other circumstances, such as the improvement of the detection and killing of much more short range missiles (e.g., Scud-like missiles). I think that the US Defense Department likes to pursue such programs not only to achieve the stated goals, but also to fund the development of subsystems and techniques that can be used in other situations. If you can perfect the detection and high speed software calculations that are necessary for an incoming ballistic missile, then as time goes on, and electronic computation cost come down, these approaches may flow down to "battlefield" countermeasures. For example, extremely accurate determination of where enemy fire is coming from. So, I think that some part of what is going on here is the funding of generic R&D for finding ways to counter incoming kinetic projectiles of all kinds.
     
  4. Rafael

    Rafael RETIRED MOD

    Messages:
    5,163
    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2008
    Ratings:
    +3 / 6,101 / -2
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    I think it wont be that effective...not atleast at this point of time... it needs some time to get mature.. just my personal observation.
     
  5. KRLIG

    KRLIG FULL MEMBER

    New Recruit

    Messages:
    2
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Today a rocket launched from Kodiak was intercepted by a rocket launched from Vandenburg AFB in California. As the champagne celebratory haze clears, keep a few things in mind:

    1. It wasn't a resounding "success": According to Lt. Gen. Patrick O'Reilly, head of the Missile Defense Agency, "...the target did not release planned countermeasures designed to try to confuse the interceptor missile. O'Reilly did not say what those countermeasures were, but they often include decoys or chaff to throw off shoot-down attempts." Apparently the technology to shoot down a real enemy missile which would have countermeasures is not yet working.

    2.It wasn't a truly realistic test: The "test" was very tightly controlled - everybody knew when the interceptor would be launched and its probable path (they've launched targets from KLC before). One wonders what would happen if they actually had to scramble an interceptor with no prior warning. Now that would be a true test.

    3.Neither North Korea or Iran has ever successfully fired a missile that had any chance of landing anywhere near the U.S. Right now, if North Korea got really lucky, they might be able to hit the tip of the Aleutians. We are sure the folks out there appreciate the expenditure of ten billion dollars a year to help them sleep more soundly.

    4. It's ALL about the money: Roughly $10 billion is spent per year on the program, which is run by defense contractor Boeing Co. but includes work by most of the nation's largest weapons makers. It is spread across three branches of the military and is composed of missiles, radar and satellites designed to intercept missiles during different stages of flight.

    5. Fortunately, President-elect Barack Obama expressed skepticism about the capabilities of the system during his campaign, leading to speculation he may reduce the program's scope. Russia has strongly objected to plans to install missile interceptors in Eastern Europe.

    6. At least the true character of the KLC has finally been admitted. According to the AP: "WASHINGTON - The Defense Department said today it shot down a missile launched from a military base in Alaska..."

    7. Finally, Kodiak desperately needs a new high school and a new police station and jail. Our roads are a mess and infrastructure in Kodiak, Alaska and all across the United States is crumbling. Take a drive down Mission Road past the Salvation Army and ask yourself: Is Missile Defense worth it? Friday's test cost between $120 million to $150 million.
     
  6. Nihat

    Nihat FULL MEMBER

    Messages:
    511
    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Ratings:
    +0 / 175 / -0
    Well , I do hope that this can be perfected soon - redering Ballistic missiles uselss.

    It has many obstacles to go through still.

    -- It has to differentiate chaff and other distractions from real target.

    -- Guard against multiple missiles heading in the same direction , just marginally different locations.

    -- Ability to trace an MIRV'ed missile and strike all warheads.

    To prevent a missile attack on cities of high value , maybe a 4 level system could be made operational , if it's not there already. First one to trace and destroy Missiles in Space , another to trace the remainders in Intermediate atmosphere , third one to detect and snap up warheads about 10 Km below Intermediate Atmosphere and a 4th manually controlled air defenses with Radar , in case everything else fails.

    Definalty won't be a surprise if within 10 years the likes of Chicago and New york have this sort of an air defense.
     
  7. Evil Flare

    Evil Flare SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    3,501
    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2008
    Ratings:
    +0 / 2,069 / -0
    Country:
    Pakistan
    Location:
    Pakistan
    What abt Cruise Missiles ??? :D :D :D
     
  8. nitesh

    nitesh SENIOR MEMBER

    Messages:
    3,261
    Joined:
    May 8, 2008
    Ratings:
    +0 / 314 / -0
    ^^
    Cruise missiles can be intercepted by medium and low range SAM. They key here is detecting them because they are mostly terrain hugging. Hence a good low level radar coverage coupled with good quick reaction missiles will ensure a great probability of kill.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  9. KRLIG

    KRLIG FULL MEMBER

    New Recruit

    Messages:
    2
    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2008
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0
    Results from the Kodiak Daily Mirror online poll, December 5 through December 12:

    The U.S. missile shield...

    is unnecessary - 67.17%

    is important for the nation's defense - 21.59%

    will never work - (5.1%)

    will ramp up a new arms race - (6.15%)

    [percentages based on 667 responses]

    Over 78% of the respondents voted anti missile defense. While online polls are generally considered "unscientific", it seems clear that a community that is home to a facility used in missile defense tests rejects the notion that it is actually needed.

    Coupled with another poll from 26 February 2005, it appears to be time for the KLC is not only unneeded, but also unwanted. We have copied the post from that date below:

    Poll Proves Local Opposition to Kodiak Launch Complex

    Results of the Kodiak Daily Mirror online poll (17-24 February 2005) 839 responses
    Published 24 Feb 2006 in the Kodiak Daily Mirror, page 4
    "Why Should the Kodiak Launch Complex exist, or not exist?"

    41% - It's waste of taxpayer money and useless in national defense
    15.85% - It could potentially damage the environment.

    56.85% - Anti-Kodiak Launch Complex

    27.41% - It's crucial for national defense
    15.71% - It's good for the local economy

    43.12% - pro-KLC

    The poll clearly indicates local attitudes toward Space Pork Kodiak. We suspect the numbers opposing the KLC would be even higher if there hadn't been the large number of out-of-state workers in town to support the latest MDA launch. The poll was running over 50% for "It's a waste..." until somebody alerted the KLC staff around Feb 22 causing a huge spike in the pro percentages. Despite this anomaly, the unmistakable community opposition is undeniable and prevailed in the overall results.
     
  10. maximus

    maximus BANNED

    Messages:
    302
    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Ratings:
    +0 / 80 / -0
    I agree. It's just a precautionary measure coupled with many fundamental flaws. It's the old idea of trying to stop a bullet with another bullet. Whether the project will repay the billions (if not trillions) it's going to cost, let alone provide a fail-safe defence against incoming warheads is one of the many riddles. Testing a missile defence shield in an orchestrated manner as opposed to a real-time scenario should be another concern. Another major obstacle for this defence shield are MIRVs. It's a great idea, but will never be effective against the number superiority of missiles. Especially new gen missiles that are getting smarter and more accurate. In essence, the missile defence shield is nothing more than a political gesture aimed towards Russia.
     
    Last edited: Dec 13, 2008