U.S. Military can hit any target on earth in 30 minutes!!!!

[gambit]

I don't understand exactly what advantage this has over ballistic missiles. It might be air breathing and thus more fuel efficient, but I still would doubt that it would be cheaper than a ballistic missile. I expect it would be difficult to intercept this missile, but it's equally difficult to intercept ballistic missiles.

The advantages are that in atmospheric flights, we can exploit aerodynamic forces to reduce the need for fuel and lower flight altitude means reduce odds of detection to compress response time by the defense.

If you look at long range radar stations designed to detect ballistic missiles, you will see their radar antennas DO NOT look up but rather at the horizon. All bodies at altitude will do what is called a 'horizon break' in their trajectories from the defender's perspective. That is when the flying body can be seen by the defender like a sunrise. The problem here is that with an orbital altitude, the time between 'horizon break' and the response time can be in minutes versus a body that is flying at 10km altitude, for example, that will produce a response time of seconds, which is not much of a response time at all.

You can see that example with this radar horizon calculator...

http://radarproblems.com/calculators/horizon.htm

Bottom line is this: The shorter the radar horizon, the better for the offense.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

I don't understand exactly what advantage this has over ballistic missiles. It might be air breathing and thus more fuel efficient, but I still would doubt that it would be cheaper than a ballistic missile. I expect it would be difficult to intercept this missile, but it's equally difficult to intercept ballistic missiles.

None, it is just some old gimmick from the Cold War, remember the Star Wars project?

But this time the US isn't going to fool anyone here.

 

[gambit]

None, it is just some old gimmick from the Cold War, remember the Star Wars project?

But this time the US isn't going to fool anyone here.

None? More like the chauvinist attitude that if China cannot do it, no one can.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

None? More like the chauvinist attitude that if China cannot do it, no one can.

We have the similar project, but believe this thing as a game changer is just plain immature.

Nevertheless it is still useful, but not a game changer.

 

[gambit]

We have the similar project, but believe this thing as a game changer is just plain immature.

Nevertheless it is still useful, but not a game changer.

If China has 'similar projects' then China must have seen something more than just 'useful' as we did. Looks like it is YOU who is feeling the 'butthurt' now...

 

[Abii]

did they test this thing again or is this a recycled news piece for a slow news day? Because the first two tests were failures and I'm not gonna bother myself with reading that thing. As Chinese Tiger said, this is a bit of a gimmic

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

If China has 'similar projects' then China must have seen something more than just 'useful' as we did. Looks like it is YOU who is feeling the 'butthurt' now...

This thing is definitely useful, but we still believe the midcourse interceptor with the MEKV technology is the only solution to deal with the enemy's ICBMs.

BTW, launching a aerial strike at the low flying altitude against the small nations is very effective.

 

[gambit]

did they test this thing again or is this a recycled news piece for a slow news day? Because the first two tests were failures and I'm not gonna bother myself with reading that thing. As Chinese Tiger said, this is a bit of a gimmic

Of course you would agree with him. We who have relevant experience in this subject expect nothing else.

---------- Post added at 03:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:11 AM ----------

This thing is definitely useful, but we still believe the midcourse interceptor with the MEKV technology is the only solution to deal with the enemy's ICBMs.

This is a 'recovery' response when one find oneself no longer capable of debating the subject.

BTW, launching a aerial strike at the low flying altitude against the small nations is very effective.

Really? Small nations? More like you do not know what the hell you are talking about.

 

[Birbal]

The advantages are that in atmospheric flights, we can exploit aerodynamic forces to reduce the need for fuel and lower flight altitude means reduce odds of detection to compress response time by the defense.

If you look at long range radar stations designed to detect ballistic missiles, you will see their radar antennas DO NOT look up but rather at the horizon. All bodies at altitude will do what is called a 'horizon break' in their trajectories from the defender's perspective. That is when the flying body can be seen by the defender like a sunrise. The problem here is that with an orbital altitude, the time between 'horizon break' and the response time can be in minutes versus a body that is flying at 10km altitude, for example, that will produce a response time of seconds, which is not much of a response time at all.

You can see that example with this radar horizon calculator...

Horizon calculator - radar and visual

Bottom line is this: The shorter the radar horizon, the better for the offense.

The radar horizon is about 400km if you're flying at 10km altitude. A ballistic missile would fly more than twice as fast but you'd have trouble detecting it beyond 800km (due to ordinary radar range problems). Thus, you don't have any shorter response times...

 

[gambit]

Just an FYI for those who wonder why the Chinese are so intellectually dishonest about this subject: ALL tests are very much 'rigged' tests, sometimes including the last one before a weapon system is declared operational and ready for national defense.

For example: If my new fandangle radar design is not ready to deal with 'hydrometeors', a word inclusive of all water based atmospheric phenomena such as rain and snow, then if I perform my test on a clear day I have just 'rigged' my test.

There is nothing dishonest about this. It is about controlling factors and variables that I cannot produce, such as rain or snow. But I can at least introduce them when the time is right. Human errors such as a clumsy technician is also a factor but one that I can have a greater degree of influence on whether that factor can affect my tests or not whereas I cannot command Mother Nature to stop the rain on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.

As the testing/certification regime progresses and my product matures, variables and factors that are not of my source can be incrementally introduce in different degrees, such as testing in the rain in the tropics and later move to the Arctic to test under more severe 'hydrometeors' conditions. Same thing for the human factor, initially I will have only experienced engineers working on the product, but as it matures, the human factor as far as proficiency goes can be broadened to well trained technicians and eventually to frontline troops who must operate and service the product under wide and adverse conditions.

This regime is applicable to ALL human products, civilian or military, and this is why it is intellectually dishonest to focus in only on the failure without considering the source of that failure to see it it can be independently corrected or if the source is inherent to the design, such as a type of computer component that must be purchased from a foreign supplier, or a material that must be manufactured under highly restrictive conditions that may affect war time readiness. Humans can be educated and trained so this factor can be independently remedied without affecting the nature of the product. On the other hand, an aircraft need a human pilot so if my aircraft need someone who can withstand 15g of force, then my product have failed.

This is why when pressed, the Chinese arguments and criticisms usually crumbles because the lack of information they can produce and their own inexperience compounds their embarrassment.

 

[gambit]

The radar horizon is about 400km if you're flying at 10km altitude. A ballistic missile would fly more than twice as fast but you'd have trouble detecting it beyond 800km (due to ordinary radar range problems). Thus, you don't have any shorter response times...

Please...PAVE PAWS effective detection range is...

AN/FPS-115 PAVE PAWS Radar

Peak Power 1,792 active elements at 325 watts = 582.4 kilowatts (kW)
Duty Factor 25% (11% search, 14% track)
Average Power 145.6 kW
Effective Transmit Gain 37.92 decibel (dB)
Active Radar Diameter 22.1 meters
Frequency 420 megahertz (MHz) to 450 MHz
Radar Detection Range 5,556 kilometers (3,000 nautical miles)
Wavelength 0.69 meters at 435 MHz
Sidelobes -20 dB (first), -30 dB (second),
-38 dB (root mean square)
Face Tilt 20 degrees
Number of Faces 2
3 dB Beam Width 2.2 degrees

 

[PERSIAN GOD KING]

How much do these missile cost each?

 

[CENTCOM]

A bunch of Taliban has made a chicken out of them in Afhanistan and they're talking and producing these hypersonic missiles for what - just to show it to the American people that their tax money is being spent on these imaginary machines.

Americans are cowards who refuse to fight a ground war with the Taliban but resort to carpet bombing to kill their enemy.

Failure to correctly analyze the situation will most certainly result in opinions that will sit far from the truth, as seems the case here. The hard work of US and NATO forces continues to lead Afghanistan towards democracy and prosperity. Dear “hafizzz”, you state that “Americans are cowards who refuse to fight a ground war,” but then the question must be asked. How do you view the Taliban, who disguise themselves among civilians and attack our forces? What is your opinion in regards to the Taliban using children and women as suicide bombers? The fact is that our warriors would relish the opportunity to meet the enemy in the open. It is the Taliban who routinely shrink from such a fight.

Dear “Astanosh Khan,” your personal opinion is clearly evident from your comment, but the facts of the matter present a completely different picture. Please read below and see for yourself; the days when Taliban had suppressed the nation of Afghanistan are long gone.

U.S. Central Command | Insurgents face unrelenting pressure in Afghanistan

Would it be possible to witness these changes, if our forces were failing to succeed against the Taliban?

Here you can watch how American, Italian and Afghan forces are securing Bala Murghab and have taken the control back from the Taliban.

Securing Bala Murghab - YouTube

Here you can read about at least three failed attacks by the insurgents against Afghan and coalition targets.

U.S. Central Command | Insurgent failures mark start of winter operations in eastern Afghanistan

The truth has continued to unfold since 9/11, and facts can be easily separated from mere lies and propaganda. The hard work of US and NATO forces continues to lead Afghanistan towards recovery, and the people of Afghanistan have long begun to experience life in a free society. At the same time, we agree that our job is not over, and our forces are working night and day in building the capacity and capability of the Afghan security forces. When our forces do withdraw, they will leave behind an Afghan population secured by forces that can defeat internal and external enemies, and guarantee the political, legal, economic, and educational systems. As the Taliban continue to create hurdles in the way of peace and progress, they will be met at every turn by coalition forces unified and determined to crush them.

MAJ Nevers,
DET, United States Central Command
U.S. Central Command

 

[SuperDoper]

I guess they meant Washington. You know what I am saying? The Americans have yet to take on a serious adversaries, you know what I am saying? Show me.

 

[Thomas]

Yeah, give me an example where US did successfully intercept the ICBM at the midcourse phase.

Intercept a single warhead or decoy at the terminal phase doesn't count, i want to see the example of the outer space midcourse altitude.

The mid course defense system was put into service before development had been completed. There was concerns with North Korea. however here are a few of the successful intercepts. Currently it has about a 50/50 success rate. The SM-3 combined with the Aegis BMD Has a much higher success rate of 80%.

http://www.mda.mil/system/aegis_bmd.html

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/AegisBallisticMissileDefense/index.html

"Aegis BMD uses the mobility of Aegis-equipped cruisers and destroyers to permit intercepts during the ascent, midcourse and descent phases, as well as providing surveillance support to other elements of the Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS)."

Mid Course Defense System Tests
IFT-3
October 2, 1999 - Success

IFT-6
July 14, 2001 - Success

IFT-7
December 3, 2001 - Success

IFT-8
March 15, 2002 - Success

FTG-02
September 1, 2006 - Success

FTG-03A
September 28, 2007 - Success

FTG-05
December 5, 2008 - Success