The Enemy

Re: The Enemy

PostBy: Devil505 On: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:58 am

coaledsweat wrote:Since the ABM site will only have 20 missles, it is obvious it is not designed to defeat a Russian attack. It is designed to deal with terrorists and rouge states that could possibly launch a missle or two against our allies in western Europe and the remote possibility that one would target the US. It is much easier to get them on the way up and it nuetralizes the MIRV component as all the warheads are in the missle on the way up. Not so on the way down. Best chance for survival? Shoot them down on the way up, they are slow and one target, like fish in a barrel.


Assuming all your statements (above) are correct.....Why is it somehow "Our Responability" again to defend our allies? Why not share the technology with them & let them defend themselves? (with our economy in shambles, we are just not in a position to be the world's policement anymore, imo)
As far as defending ourselves, I agree that a limmitted program would be beneficial since it would not require deployment overseas or at least shouild not be based on technology that would require overseas deployment. (Carrier based laser technology, or the like should work)
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: The Enemy

PostBy: Yanche On: Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:47 am

pvolcko wrote:I've read a good deal about the program and the technology. No need to dig up links or anything, there's a good chance I've come across them before. I'll stack your engineer against others who say it is an achievable goal and I'll also rely on the time tested ability of engineers and scientists to do so many things that were considered impossible or improbable at some point prior to their succeeding. I'll also rely on my own engineering studies and experience and understanding (admittedly limited) of the challenges involved.

I believe it is doable, it is on its way to being done. I believe it is a worthy goal from a military and technological standpoint. I believe it will be a highly valuable political tool, too. There is a pressing need for these kinds of defensive capabilities, with an array of states that may well launch a missile, be it nuclear or more conventionally armed, against us either directly or against our interests or allies. There are also non-state players who may well manage to seize control of such a weapon and launch it themselves. In either case, deterrence of equal or greater retaliatory force may well prove not enough to dissuade such an attack. Without these kinds of defensive weapons there would be no other option but to absorb the destruction and death toll and then launch a counter attack of some sort. With these weapons, we can potentially stop an attack before it hits, opening up more options in our response or at the very least saving assets from being destroyed and people from being killed who otherwise would have been.
In the late 1980's and early 1990's during Reagan's Star Wars program I designed spacecraft and ground support electronics for the programs listed below.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/sys ... ta-180.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/sys ... ta-181.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/sys ... ta-183.htm

The common objective was to find out if an Anti-Ballistic Missile system was technically possible. There are multiple problems to solve. Identifying the target, command and control in deciding to attack and getting to the target in time to destroy it. All of these are formidable problems. You have only seconds or tens of seconds to decide. An error could have grave consequences. It's a fools folly to think that any ABM system would give much defense against an all out attack by a determined enemy. Star Wars was a useful program that bankrupted the USSR and led to it's demise. Even against a rouge nations single missile attack the command and control aspect is so daunting it would be unlikely to be effective. Any ABM system will be a political tool and a make work program. It's just not an effective weapon.

Note in the first listed link, the system engineer is Michael Griffin, the current head of NASA.
Yanche
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Alternate Heating Systems S-130
Coal Size/Type: Anthracite Pea

Re: The Enemy

PostBy: pvolcko On: Sat Apr 12, 2008 12:07 pm

And one of the big goals of the missile defense system now is to make it prohibitively expensive for countries like Iran, NK, etc. to build enough missiles and warheads and/or develop countermeasure technology to defeat the system. So there is some of that "out spend them to victory" logic at work here.

People like to claim that "they only have to be lucky once" and while there is some truth to that, in an absolutist sense, the truth is they want to be lucky a lot more than that and even if such a system is only 25% or 50% effective that is still many many lives saved and assets protected and worth the investment.

Lastly, the system has come some way since the "star wars" days. Tracking, target identification, computer analysis power, lessons learned from the cold war and events since, and the fact that we aren't primarily concerned with sub launched attacks were there is very little time to react, but rather land based launches from well watched (or at least watchable) nations and locations. And even with a short and medium range attack (say under 1000 km) there are shells of protection and defensive systems in place (Arrow, Patriot, etc.) with a proven track record to hopefully deal with those threats.

We're making progress. I believe the goal is achievable. And I think the ramifications with Russia and China are quite manageable through negotiation and eventually bringing them under the system's protection with some level of cooperation and shared C&C for their regions. I support the system's continued development and deployment.
pvolcko
 


Re: The Enemy

PostBy: coaledsweat On: Sat Apr 12, 2008 1:02 pm

Yanche wrote: Any ABM system will be a political tool and a make work program. It's just not an effective weapon.


It would appear that Mr.Putin does not agree with that statement. He believes that we can do it. :)
coaledsweat
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Axeman Anderson 260M
Coal Size/Type: Pea

Re: The Enemy

PostBy: Yanche On: Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:16 pm

pvolcko wrote:And one of the big goals of the missile defense system now is to make it prohibitively expensive for countries like Iran, NK, etc. to build enough missiles and warheads and/or develop countermeasure technology to defeat the system. So there is some of that "out spend them to victory" logic at work here.

People like to claim that "they only have to be lucky once" and while there is some truth to that, in an absolutist sense, the truth is they want to be lucky a lot more than that and even if such a system is only 25% or 50% effective that is still many many lives saved and assets protected and worth the investment.

Lastly, the system has come some way since the "star wars" days. Tracking, target identification, computer analysis power, lessons learned from the cold war and events since, and the fact that we aren't primarily concerned with sub launched attacks were there is very little time to react, but rather land based launches from well watched (or at least watchable) nations and locations. And even with a short and medium range attack (say under 1000 km) there are shells of protection and defensive systems in place (Arrow, Patriot, etc.) with a proven track record to hopefully deal with those threats.

We're making progress. I believe the goal is achievable. And I think the ramifications with Russia and China are quite manageable through negotiation and eventually bringing them under the system's protection with some level of cooperation and shared C&C for their regions. I support the system's continued development and deployment.
Any ABM system is easily overwhelmed by decoy targets. What happens is the detector sensor, be it radar, infrared, UV, etc. can not discriminate between targets in it's field of view. The defensive missile is likely to shoot down a decoy. Offensive missiles are easy and relatively cheap to equip with decoys. You just can not identify the correct target. Yes, decoys have different aerodynamic characteristics but by the time you identify the decoys it's to late.

While there have been successful ABM test firings all have been designed in such a way to avoid any decoy discrimination problems. The science behind the sensors needed to detect a hostile missile hasn't changed since the referenced Delta satellite research programs. Let me restate the problem another way. There are not enough photons, electrons, magnetic fields or whatever you want to measure, radiating from a hostile missile, compared to the background of space to detect. No development program is ever going to change that. Sure there is a large rocket plume during the launch phase to detect, but that lasts only a short period of time. If you base targeting on the launch phase, you have only seconds for a go, no-go to kill decision. Would you want a ABM system on automatic mode? Of course not. But now the time window for human decision has passed. The next president wouldn't have enought time to answer the phone at 3 AM. Believe me, I was one of many engineers and scientists trying to find a workable solution.
Yanche
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Alternate Heating Systems S-130
Coal Size/Type: Anthracite Pea

Re: The Enemy

PostBy: Yanche On: Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:22 pm

coaledsweat wrote:
Yanche wrote: Any ABM system will be a political tool and a make work program. It's just not an effective weapon.


It would appear that Mr.Putin does not agree with that statement. He believes that we can do it. :)
Putin is exerting his nations objections for at home political reasons. The Russian engineers and scientists have the same understanding of an ABM system as ours do. Russia will never put a dime into any system, ours, NATO's or theirs. They have better use for the money. So do we.
Yanche
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Alternate Heating Systems S-130
Coal Size/Type: Anthracite Pea

Re: The Enemy

PostBy: spc On: Sat Apr 12, 2008 2:32 pm

We need something like this on a much bigger scale. :)



(From a Richard S. post)
spc
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Leisure Line
Stove/Furnace Model: Pioneer

Re: The Enemy

PostBy: Devil505 On: Sat Apr 12, 2008 3:03 pm

spc wrote:We need something like this on a much bigger scale. :)



(From a Richard S. post)



That system is a "last ditch", desparation answer to shooting down relatively slow aircraft or cruise missles. It was never designed to, nor could it be adapted for protection against the very fast targets that an IRBM or ICBM attack would face us with.
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: The Enemy

PostBy: spc On: Sat Apr 12, 2008 3:25 pm

Always the pessimist. :(
spc
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Leisure Line
Stove/Furnace Model: Pioneer

Re: The Enemy

PostBy: Devil505 On: Sat Apr 12, 2008 3:45 pm

spc wrote:Always the pessimist. :(


:lol: :lol:
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: The Enemy

PostBy: Devil505 On: Sat Apr 12, 2008 6:12 pm

Yanche wrote:
coaledsweat wrote:
Yanche wrote: Any ABM system will be a political tool and a make work program. It's just not an effective weapon.


It would appear that Mr.Putin does not agree with that statement. He believes that we can do it. :)
Putin is exerting his nations objections for at home political reasons. The Russian engineers and scientists have the same understanding of an ABM system as ours do. Russia will never put a dime into any system, ours, NATO's or theirs. They have better use for the money. So do we.


Thanks for your expert points Yanche. I think we should all defer to your views as you are the only forum member who worked on these systems as an engineer. End of debate as far as I am concerned!
Devil505
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Harman
Stove/Furnace Model: TLC-2000

Re: The Enemy

PostBy: spc On: Sat Apr 12, 2008 7:35 pm

Wait a minute, is Yanche saying we should not further the development a MDS?
spc
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Leisure Line
Stove/Furnace Model: Pioneer

Re: The Enemy

PostBy: stockingfull On: Sat Apr 12, 2008 8:24 pm

Always interesting when a couple facts get in the way of a good neocon argument, ain't it? :hammer:
stockingfull
 
Stove/Furnace Make: Yellow Flame
Stove/Furnace Model: W.A. 150 Stoker Furnace

Re: The Enemy

PostBy: Yanche On: Sat Apr 12, 2008 9:44 pm

spc wrote:Wait a minute, is Yanche saying we should not further the development a MDS?
No, I'm not saying stop the research and development of anti-missile technology. That's fine and prudent. But full scale deployment of a missile defense system would be a costly error. As with all expensive weapon systems costs escalate. That too, may be acceptable if in the end you get a usable weapon, defense system, deterrent, etc. I just don't see it how a missile defense system is technically feasible.
Yanche
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Alternate Heating Systems S-130
Coal Size/Type: Anthracite Pea

Re: The Enemy

PostBy: coalkirk On: Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:13 pm

Yanche,
You obviously know more about this topic than anyone else on this forum so I'm going to take your word for, it's a difficult and daunting task. I would just like to point out that some time around 100 years ago, the head of the US Patent office recommended the patent office be closed because everything that could be invented had already been invented.
I saw a story today that they are expecting to have an ipod soon that holds 500,000 songs or 3,500 movies. That just boggles my mind. I don't think there is a problem that can't be solved.
Last edited by coalkirk on Sat Apr 12, 2008 10:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
coalkirk
 
Stoker Coal Boiler: Harman VF3000
Coal Size/Type: antrhcite/rice coal