Guest RabidBillsFanVT Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Well, actually...if you look at where the ABMs are placed, and then trace the great circle routes on a globe that a ballistic missile would take from North Korea to the continental US, you just might gain some insight into not only the administration's North Korea policy, but even their policy in regards to the war on terror. For what it's worth, I think the ABM system as it stands now is well worth pursuing and over-criticized by its critics...but nonetheless, not fully tested as an integrated system and not something that should be considered a full-up production weapons system. I also have strong questions/slight disagreements about some of the underlying national security policies that dictate its deployment. But there's far more to it than election year politicking. 34419[/snapback] So WHAT? China's missiles have been pointed at the United States for YEARS, and we haven't had any need for some waste of money idea that never has worked, and is not worth pursuing. I KNOW the administration's North Korea policy, and it is ALMOST right... they favor containment and pressure by neighboring countries (NOTABLY CHINA) to keep them in line. My only regret is that they don't look more favorably on the talks with South Korea... It has nothing to do with the election, but it is a part of next year's budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 So WHAT? China's missiles have been pointed at the United States for YEARS, and we haven't had any need for some waste of money idea that never has worked, and is not worth pursuing. I KNOW the administration's North Korea policy, and it is ALMOST right... they favor containment and pressure by neighboring countries (NOTABLY CHINA) to keep them in line. My only regret is that they don't look more favorably on the talks with South Korea... It has nothing to do with the election, but it is a part of next year's budget. 34614[/snapback] Actually, a lot of the components worked quite well. I work with a guy who was on the team that had a laser inside of a 747 that actually targeted and shot down missiles in their boost phase, and took out re-entry vehicles zeroing in. And, if you understand the dynamics of a North Korea strategy, you'd know why those ABM's are there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted September 17, 2004 Author Share Posted September 17, 2004 Actually, a lot of the components worked quite well. I work with a guy who was on the team that had a laser inside of a 747 that actually targeted and shot down missiles in their boost phase, and took out re-entry vehicles zeroing in. And, if you understand the dynamics of a North Korea strategy, you'd know why those ABM's are there. 34829[/snapback] Didn't it successfully identify a dozen or so decoys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Didn't it successfully identify a dozen or so decoys? 34839[/snapback] I'd have to ask. I was pretty well amazed that they could do it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted September 17, 2004 Author Share Posted September 17, 2004 I'd have to ask. I was pretty well amazed that they could do it at all. 34859[/snapback] A few days ago, I was channel fliping and saw some film about it, which is the extent of my knowledge. I've no idea what they are trying to do to surmount atmospheric diffusion, ablative and reflective coatings. Nor should I! Seems like fundamental difficulties tho'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 A few days ago, I was channel fliping and saw some film about it, which is the extent of my knowledge. I've no idea what they are trying to do to surmount atmospheric diffusion, ablative and reflective coatings. Nor should I! Seems like fundamental difficulties tho'. 34871[/snapback] Probably need DC Tom in on the conversation. For one thing, the beam is invisible, so I don't know if that affects diffusion any. I still find it incredible that something that powerful can fit onto an airplane. Even if it's a big one. We have all kinds of strange things out there you never hear about much. A lot of work being done in non-lethal technologies that's pretty amazing. Directed energy weapons and such. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Actually, a lot of the components worked quite well. I work with a guy who was on the team that had a laser inside of a 747 that actually targeted and shot down missiles in their boost phase, and took out re-entry vehicles zeroing in. And, if you understand the dynamics of a North Korea strategy, you'd know why those ABM's are there. 34829[/snapback] The real issue with the ABM testing is the relative lack of testing as a full-up integrated system, and the lack of understanding of the testing they did. The component testing went well, by and large...but that consisted of setting up scripted, known scenarios that were designed to test and validate specific components of the solution. Perfectly valid tests...but most people, understanding NOTHING about properly testing anything, don't understand that. So when the media tells them "An ABM test AGAIN failed to intercept a warhead" they take it at face value, not understanding that the successful test validated ground-based tracking and guidance as was planned, and interception was never a goal of the test. The main problem with the testing is that, even with the components validated, there hasn't so far been a full-up test of the entire integrated system. They know the components work, but whether all the components of the ABM system (note that I'm NOT talking about ABL) working together will track and intercept a missile is an untested hypothesis...enough so that there's talk of using some of the currently deployed missiles for the proper integration testing they should have done BEFORE they went live with this system. Ordinarily I'd say it was bad planning...but I recognize the trade-off and the reasons for it (don't necessarily agree with it, but I understand it.) The bottom line is that the system, particularly the interceptor portion of it, is more akin to a prototype than a truly deployable system...more analogous to a YF- aircraft designation than a true F- designation, you might say. Won't speak to ABL, though, because 1) I don't know that much about the program itself, and 2) what little I do know says to me it's complementary to ABM (used in the boost-midcourse phase, rather than the midcourse-terminal phase), but not directly integrated to it. But I could be wrong. By the way...how many people here know that three Aegis ships modified for ballistic missile detection (as part of the overall ABM system) were recently dispatched to - you guessed it - the Sea of Japan? Yeah...the ABM system has NOTHING to do with the administration's North Korea policy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 A few days ago, I was channel fliping and saw some film about it, which is the extent of my knowledge. I've no idea what they are trying to do to surmount atmospheric diffusion, ablative and reflective coatings. Nor should I! Seems like fundamental difficulties tho'. 34871[/snapback] I THINK that once you get to a certain power, atmospheric diffusion becomes largely ignorable. Basically, the laser's so powerful it uses a fraction of its power boring its own hole through the atmosphere (that's got to piss off the wacko environmentalists ) without measurably attenuating the beam. Reflective and ablative coatings...well, ablative coatings ablate (duh). They don't last forever. And reflective materials are never completely reflective; there's always SOME absorption. And I can imagine them not being effective anyway: laser light isn't "normal' light. It's not like heating something with a heat lamp; you're actually throwing an extreme electromagnetic flux at a material. It's why even a 3mW pocket laser pointer will blind you: the light's not bright, and 3mW isn't a lot of power...but that's an average power. The PEAK power is considerable, given that the light waves are coherent, and can chemically destroy the receptors in your retina. And the peak power goes as the SQUARE of the average power...so a three megawatt laser in a 747 is rated a million time stronger than a pocket laser pointer...but the effect is a TRILLION times stronger. (That's the hand-waving explanation, anyway. You want better, I'd need a blackboard and lecture notes.) So ablative and reflective materials...they won't be completely ineffective, but they're dealing with not just light, but what's in effect a VERY strong, very powerful short-wavelength AC current. And even if they were effective...killing a warhead doesn't necessarily mean punching a hole in the warhead body. There are sensitive (and I imagine cryogenically cooled) parts to it. Even with a perfect ablative/reflective coating...doesn't mean you can't still get a soft kill on the electronics. Sure, it might mean an inert 300kT warhead lands in downtown LA...but it beats the hell out of having a live one land... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted September 17, 2004 Author Share Posted September 17, 2004 Well, I suppose if my ablative coated/reflective coated thing's sensor detected a temp rise because of the lasing of the one or so, so-equipped 747's that just happened to be close enough to my trajectory (a rare happenstance I should think), I could go to the EMF pin-down option... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Well, I suppose if my ablative coated/reflective coated thing's sensor detected a temp rise because of the lasing of the one or so, so-equipped 747's that just happened to be close enough to my trajectory (a rare happenstance I should think), I could go to the EMF pin-down option... 35277[/snapback] I've always been a fan of the pre-boost phase interdiction option.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 I've always been a fan of the pre-boost phase interdiction option.... 35315[/snapback] Is that where you squirt it with ammonia, because Ed provoked a telephone pole in New Jersey? Because if you do, you can intercept 60% of the top 40% of all the missiles that were fired in the first three years of Vietnam... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 Is that where you squirt it with ammonia, because Ed provoked a telephone pole in New Jersey? Because if you do, you can intercept 60% of the top 40% of all the missiles that were fired in the first three years of Vietnam... 35323[/snapback] Yup, that's exactly how I got the first of my 658 purple hearts. That ammonia sure stings when you get it in the eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted September 17, 2004 Author Share Posted September 17, 2004 I've always been a fan of the pre-boost phase interdiction option.... 35315[/snapback] And no hi-tech telemmetry is needed beyond a few dit-dat-dit-dat shortwave band keystrokes to signify mission accomplished... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_BiB_ Posted September 17, 2004 Share Posted September 17, 2004 And no hi-tech telemmetry is needed beyond a few dit-dat-dit-dat shortwave band keystrokes to signify mission accomplished... 35346[/snapback] And a really bustassed post strike powerpoint demonstration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts