New Russian hypersonic ballistic missile?

Not really. The MTCR is NOT a blanket export restriction, which is what people seem to interpret it as.

What Trident said is largely correct:

Greatest restraint is applied to what are known as Category I items. These items include complete rocket systems (including ballistic missiles, space launch vehicles and sounding rockets) and unmanned air vehicle systems (including cruise missiles systems, target and reconnaissance drones) with capabilities exceeding a 300km/500kg range/payload threshold; production facilities for such systems; and major sub-systems including rocket stages, re-entry vehicles, rocket engines, guidance systems and warhead mechanisms.

The remainder of the annex is regarded as Category II, which includes complete rocket systems (including ballistic missiles systems, space launch vehicles and sounding rockets) and unmanned air vehicles (including cruise missile systems, target drones, and reconnaissance drones) not covered in item I, capable of a maximum range equal to or greater than, 300km.

The MCTR agreement means that both Tochka-U and Iskander-E cannot have a warhead 500kgs or heavier, which applies to both weapons, while the range limitation of not exceeding 300km really only effects the Iskander-E as the Tochka-U in its later models only reaches 160km with its 480kg warhead.

Then there is the MCTR (Missile Technology Control Regime) which prohibits export of weapons with a range of more than 300km and warheads over 500kg to nations that cannot already build such systems themselves.

Have you guys even read the MTCR documents?

Russian Newsweek is a reality 🙂
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/06/07/newsweek.shtml
http://www.eastview.com/xq/ASP/sku=P50088/Moskva/Russian/qx/russian/periodicals/product.asp

Never said that it wasn’t. Just seems. . . odd I guess. 🙂

BTW isn’t that kinda weird, a Russian Newsweek? Wouldn’t that be kinda like an American Pravada :confused:

Russian Newsweek is a reality 🙂
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/06/07/newsweek.shtml
http://www.eastview.com/xq/ASP/sku=P50088/Moskva/Russian/qx/russian/periodicals/product.asp

New Russian hypersonic ballistic missile = SS-19 + Albatros/Prizyv/Igla vehicle.
Russian NEWSWEEK’s article here:
http://www.runewsweek.ru/theme/?tid=69&rid=1175

Anybody have an English translation? (BTW isn’t that kinda weird, a Russian Newsweek? Wouldn’t that be kinda like an American Pravada :confused: )

New Russian hypersonic ballistic missile = SS-19 + Albatros/Prizyv/Igla vehicle.
Russian NEWSWEEK’s article here:
http://www.runewsweek.ru/theme/?tid=69&rid=1175

As Trident mentions, the INF treaty only applies to weapons the Soviets use and it only applies to nuclear armed missiles with a range of between 500km and 5,500km.

Yeah I had a semi brain-fart. What I should have said is that Iskander-M/Tender was developed to comply with INF whereas Oka/Oka-U did not. Iskander-E complies with MCTR.

The MCTR agreement means that both Tochka-U and Iskander-E cannot have a warhead 500kgs or heavier, which applies to both weapons, while the range limitation of not exceeding 300km really only effects the Iskander-E as the Tochka-U in its later models only reaches 160km with its 480kg warhead.

It’s MTCR 🙂

MTCR again, only applies to export. What I was saying the Tochka-U was not developed for export, it is simply an improved Tochka with more range, it’s been in service since before the USSR broke up. The “U” of course means improved. In fact, MTCR wasn’t even in place until after Tochka-U entered service in the Red Army (service entry for Tochka-U/ SS-21 SCARAB-B was 1989).

INF only comes into operation when a missile has a range of 300km (hence why Iskander-E has a range of 280km).

As Trident mentions, the INF treaty only applies to weapons the Soviets use and it only applies to nuclear armed missiles with a range of between 500km and 5,500km.

The MCTR agreement means that both Tochka-U and Iskander-E cannot have a warhead 500kgs or heavier, which applies to both weapons, while the range limitation of not exceeding 300km really only effects the Iskander-E as the Tochka-U in its later models only reaches 160km with its 480kg warhead.

I think you’re confusing the INF treaty and the MCTR. The INF (Intermediate Nuclear Forces) treaty is between the USSR/Russia and the USA only, it thus has no bearing on export weapons systems. The range limit established in that document is 500km (no idea about the warhead).

Then there is the MCTR (Missile Technology Control Regime) which prohibits export of weapons with a range of more than 300km and warheads over 500kg to nations that cannot already build such systems themselves.

I could be wrong though.

Little thing called export restrictions… ISKANDER-E and TOCHKA-U are for export and are not used by Russian forces… I assumed we were not talking about a war between the US and Russia… silly me. The limit on warhead sizes for ballistic missiles is 500kg and 300km respectively, which the ISKANDER-E must adhere to regarding range and warhead weight and the TOCHKA-U must adhere to regarding weight.

Tochka-U is used by Russian forces- it’s an improved version of the original. No variant of Tochka comes under the INF Treaty. INF only comes into operation when a missile has a range of 300km (hence why Iskander-E has a range of 280km).

Unknown Russian Strategic Missile Concepts

Greetings–I am new to this forum. I am trying to find IDs concerning Soviet/Russian strategic missile R&D efforts. Recently, I found references on a few Russian websites to missile concepts that I have never seen before. One site states that before the breakup of the USSR, the Soviets were working on two MIRVed ICBMs (the Ikar and the Yermak [or Ermak]), as well as four single-warhead ICBMS (Topol-M, Kur’yer, Dnepr, and Al’batros), and two SLBMs (Bark and Shtorm). Another website refers to a “Universal small missile” by the Chelomei design bureau, and I also found a reference to two industrial designators, 15Zh55 and 15Zh66. I know that the Ikar and Yermak were to be modernizations of the SS-18 (R-36M3) and SS-24 (RT-23M) respectively. The Kur’yer was of course the Soviet response to the US “Midgetman,” the Al’batros was the predecessor for the current hypersonic warhead, and the Bark was the unsuccessful SS-NX-28. I have never before heard of the Dnepr, the Chelomei Universal small missile, the Shtorm SLBM, the 15Zh55, or the 15Zh66, however. Does anyone have any idea what these systems were, or any technical data?

The Russian as I understand it after reading through their recent and past test of SS-18 and Topol-M are developing a Family of such Manouvering Warhead ( powered by Scramjet or other kind of propulsion ) though none of them seems to have been deployed so far , They are testing some new and range of concepts perhaps with the intention of defeating future ABM systems ( Putin ofcourse denied that and stated that the new system dosent care if ABM is there or not )

While the SS-18 carried a larger Scramjet Vehical ( which was claimed to have bounced beween space and upper atmosphere many times before she finally reentered ) tested in late 2004 the Topol-M carried smaller Manouvering warhead showing lateral Monouvering capability ( the warfare.ru video shows something similar )

We never know if any of these exotic warhead and propulsion system have been actually deployed , But according to Pavel such warheads will start entering service at the end of the decade.

Something like that. The articles on that Russian thing seem highly ambiguous though, so I’m not sure. Depending on which one you read it sounds like it could be either of the concepts mentioned above.

As I said in that other thread, the MKV idea might just make KKVs worthwhile after all.

That said, there seem to be two possible configurations of this new Russian warhead:

A) It’s a relatively straight-forward MARV, in which case it probably uses thrusters for maneuverability, giving it some freedom even outside the atmosphere. This is what the experimental MARVs in Soviet times were like.

B) It has an airbreathing (sc)ramjet sustainer. If this turns out to be true it won’t spend a lot of time in space at all, like Garry said. Trying to destroy it outside the atmosphere would probably mean that you’d have to be close enough to the ICBM launch site to go for a boost-phase intercept.

Whatever it is though, I’m giving the warhead the benefit of the doubt (atleast sofar), based on GBI’s past performance 😉

Something similar in concept to this but not quite on the same scale?

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/hgv.html

As I said in that other thread, the MKV idea might just make KKVs worthwhile after all.

That said, there seem to be two possible configurations of this new Russian warhead:

A) It’s a relatively straight-forward MARV, in which case it probably uses thrusters for maneuverability, giving it some freedom even outside the atmosphere. This is what the experimental MARVs in Soviet times were like.

B) It has an airbreathing (sc)ramjet sustainer. If this turns out to be true it won’t spend a lot of time in space at all, like Garry said. Trying to destroy it outside the atmosphere would probably mean that you’d have to be close enough to the ICBM launch site to go for a boost-phase intercept.

Whatever it is though, I’m giving the warhead the benefit of the doubt (atleast sofar), based on GBI’s past performance 😉

KKV? Please. Russia got this right and stuck with it when they developed and deployed nuclear-armed ABMs. It’s cheaper and over the long run, I guarantee you, it’ll be more effective. One of the main problems the US has is a propensity to latch on to whatever technology is assumed to be the most advanced at the time and run with it until it ends up in service or gets cancelled after a boatload of money has been wasted.

Anyway, regarding Sprint, you have to check this out:

http://srmsc.org/video/004204m0.mpg

THAT IS AWESOME!

You need to check out the DVD “Nukes in Space”. That’s the movie the clip is from. They show a few more seconds on the DVD and you see the 2nd stage turn literally white hot and glowing. Pretty cool. They also have a shot of a Zeus 3rd stage test firing the fins at the top. The interesting thing about both the Zeus and the Spartan is that their 3rd stage motors “pull” the warhead along rather than pushing it along. The exhaust from the third stage motor exits through the fin trailing edges. Pretty cool to see those fins flipping back and forth on a test bench with rocket exhaust coming out of them.

As for KKVs which would you rather do, fire a couple off and hit the target or have to be REALLY sure before you set of a couple nukes over your own territory and hose god knows how many electrical devices? The other thing is you don’t need as big of a missile to accomplish the same task. The MKV will make it even more compelling. Add to that that neither Spartan or Gorgon had anything like the range of GBI because they had to carry those big ass warheads around. I think this says it best:

“Should any of the SH-11 Gorgons actually be used in the Moscow vicinity, their 1 megaton yield would itself cause havoc below — not from the blast, but from the electromagnetic pulse (EMP). A nuclear weapon of that size exploded above the atmosphere causes a large EMP “pancake” as it is called, creating EMP effects throughout line of site to the blast. For instance, a detonation at 50 miles altitude would affect a 500 miles radius with EMP effects; a blast at 100 miles altitude would effect a 900 miles radius. The EMP effects would damage all non-hardened electronic components. It is quite conceivable that while the Moscow ABM system might defend Moscow from a small attack, its very defensive use might temporarily take the heart of Russia out of the electronic age for an indeterminate period of time.”

http://warfare.ru/?lang=&catid=315&linkid=2207

That’s quite a risk to take for “oh it was a CONVENTIONAL warhead?” Hell if you had some Russian-hating Iranians (or resourceful terrorists- give them time) they could lob a conventional missile over there just to provoke something like that.

Back to the Sprint though. Did you notice how aerodynamic forces finished off the 1st stage? They used a linear charge to sever the one-piece skin but that bottom stage just fell to pieces. I wonder if anybody knows of any videos of HEDI (200 Gs) or HiBEX (400 Gs)?

KKV? Please. Russia got this right and stuck with it when they developed and deployed nuclear-armed ABMs. It’s cheaper and over the long run, I guarantee you, it’ll be more effective. One of the main problems the US has is a propensity to latch on to whatever technology is assumed to be the most advanced at the time and run with it until it ends up in service or gets cancelled after a boatload of money has been wasted.

Anyway, regarding Sprint, you have to check this out:

http://srmsc.org/video/004204m0.mpg

THAT IS AWESOME!

PAC-3 does it all the time.

Ummm… if you mean PAC-3 hits manouvering targets all the time that is not the same as saying PAC-3 hits very very high speed targets that change direction, all the time.

If that were the case a stinger could be used… that hits manouvering targets so if you give it a powerful enough booster, it should be able to hit an incoming ICBM RV.

There is a reason Israeli F-4s armed with Sparrow missiles could not hit Mig-25, but F-15s armed with Sparrow missiles could in certain circumstances.

And you’re still overlooking one point and that is a KKV can adjust it’s course to match the RVs.

It certainly can, but every time it adjusts course it is using up flight speed. As I mentioned (I thought it was clear) multiple adjustments could result in too many corrections by the intercepting weapon for it to reach any interception point before the target hits its target.

And if the KKV deploys a small cloud of pellets a fraction of a second before impact it makes it all the more likely that the RV won’t get away.

As long as the cloud is deployed at the correct time… too early and you will miss, too late and you might not hit the target with enough mass to have an effect. I have seen guys miss targets at very close range with a shotgun because the pellets have not had the time to spread out before they got to the target, and I have seen lots of cases where the target was just too far away to be dropped by the few pellets that hit it. We are Talking of small fairly heavily built RVs here, not B-52s.

On the other hand the RV will have to be looking for a KKV (and be able to track it) to do any meaningful evasive manuevering.

Not necessarily. A manouvering RV could do it easily…with no drag in space a side thruster would be very effective in moving around the RV… just as long as it hits the atmosphere in the right orientation and not too fast at the right angle.

And if the KKV deploys a small cloud of pellets a fraction of a second before impact it makes it all the more likely that the RV won’t get away.

Unless the RV is heading directly toward where the KKV was launched from it will be a crossing path rather than a head on collision. In the crossing path case at the speeds involved aiming would still be critical.

Now consider how deadly missiles would be if they were MORE agile than the F-16. Your arguement there actually supports what I’m saying. Think about it.

But technically most missiles are already much more agile than any F-16… can an F-16 pull 60 gs at mach 3? If those same missiles were turbojet powered and could be designed to match speed with its target it could use much larger control surfaces to allow higher performance at lower speeds it would easily outmanouver any F-16 performing manouvers that would kill a human pilot…

Your basic premise is flawed. KKVs don’t just aim for a “point in space”. What the hell would they need all the IR seekers for if that were the case?

They use IR seekers for the terminal phase. If they used IR guidance from launch, lets exaggerate the distances to make it clear. IR guided SM-3 launched from Washington State to intercept RV heading over north pole to New York. If the SM-3 flew directly toward its target it would start by flying toward the north pole and have to turn as the Rv moved closer and closer to NY till it was heading toward NY. Of course by the time it was pointing at NY the RV would already be there so it is too late. Instead of flying that long curved path the SM-3 would more likely be fired to a point north of NY… the distance north calculated on the known speed of the SM-3 and the detected speed and direction of the RV. When the SM-3 gets to the vicinity of the interception point it looks back along the targets expected trajectory path to find the RV and get a lock. When it gets a lock then the simplist method of hitting that target would be to turn the SM-3 away from the target till the RV stops moving in the field of view. Once it has stopped moving in the field of view it is either coming towards you or moving away. Based on the FOV of the seeker (ie looking forward) and the interception caclulations the RV should be closing. Maintain path till RV comes through the seeker transparancy at the point where it is stationary. If the RV is manouvering however it becomes much more complicated. You basically have to create a 3D model of the RV and project its future position like a vector stikcing out the front of the incoming target and try to get to the tip of that vector at the right time. The speeds involved mean that that tip can move 100ms in milliseconds.

Also KKVs can aim for a particular POINT on the incoming RV. THAAD has DEMONSTRATED the ability to hit a specific point within an area on a missile roughly 10″ square.

Yes, for a ballistic target in space that is following a steady predictible flight path and using a terminal IR seeker of course that is possible… but now that THAAD and SM-3 have that capability do you think those trying to defeat such a defence will continue to build the same old nonmanouvering RV?

Do it too soon and the KKV will simply match it.

Or use 100 small jets (ie Dragon ATGM) and do it 100 times…

Sources?

Tomato and Plum are my favourites but I also like chutneys.

And come in at the planned angle with a damaged heat shield and bad things happen.

A human crew and complex structure of what is basically a very large aircraft is more vulnerable to such things than an RV.

Kinda like a bullet going through an orange.

Except the peel of an Orange is rather unlikely to naturally contain the Ebola virus.

That surprises me that it’s that small. Just did a check and ATACMs carries a 560kg submunition warhead about 30% further than SS-21 and weighs a thousand pounds less. (Not trying to get into a p!ssing contest just figured they’d have bigger warheads).

Little thing called export restrictions… ISKANDER-E and TOCHKA-U are for export and are not used by Russian forces… I assumed we were not talking about a war between the US and Russia… silly me. The limit on warhead sizes for ballistic missiles is 500kg and 300km respectively, which the ISKANDER-E must adhere to regarding range and warhead weight and the TOCHKA-U must adhere to regarding weight.

AFAIK the only SAMs of ANY type deployed in the United States are maybe some surface launched AMRAAMs in D.C. All the rest have been removed from service for decades.

Doesn’t matter to my point. If you deploy a type of SAM to protect an area and assume that the high altitude capability of your SAM means your SAM defences don’t need depth, then a smart enemy will exploit that.

But 1. It’s not going to be able to use that propulsion in space so it’s not going to help it against GBI (the system Putin is boasting it immune to) and 2. The US has no SAMs deployed of any note in the US. At this point one of those Meteorite missiles Russia was working on would have a better chance of impacting in the US than a solitary ICBM. Hell most likely even a subsonic cruise missile would make it.

The weapons Putin is talking about uses a depressed trajectory and spends very little time in space… against George Busche Senior (GBI) it would reenter the atmosphere well short of the launch facilities and fly through the atmosphere and kill the GBI command centre with a nuclear warhead…

but it was carrying a very heavy warhead so it had to.

But the S-300V carries no warhead at all… its weight is just a reflection of how primative Russian weapons are… :rolleyes:

SM-6 would go after a similar range of targets to S-300/400 and the SM-3 would be a dedicated exoatmospheric weapon.

Careful… you almost suggest that S-300/S-400 might actually be worth having…

I don’t know, I think knocking out the other guys photo recon satellites would be worth doing. Besides it’s not like these mobile SAMs you’re talking about are going to be able to hit those satellites either.

Recon satellites don’t go over very often (which is why planes are still used) and can be quickly replaced if knocked down.

On the one hand you claim it takes 32 Patriots to down a single Scud

Except those Patriots were designed to engage aircraft, not ballistic missiles. It seems to be too good at shooting down some types of planes… Tornados and F-18s in particular.

yet somehow 40 (the max they’re talking about) GBIs is going to make the entire Russian nuclear arsenal obsolete?

40 interceptor missiles is just words at the moment… much like words when Serbia signed an agreement over Kosovo and NATO said independance was not an option and Kosovo was Serbian territory and that wasn’t going to change… or the same NATO that promised the Soviets that NATO would not expand east to include former warsaw pact nations after the cold war ended…

I am sure it would be very easy to expand from 40 missiles… hey we could stop an asteroid with these… but we need 2,000…

hmmm, 2,000 interceptor missiles vs 2,000 warheads…

An accurate observation… but a little beside the point isn’t it?
An interceptor intercepts by tracking the target and then anticipating and intercept point and then attempting to arrive at the interception point at the same time target arrives… in other words is it 4 Dimensional geometry, with the 4th dimension being time. Obviously deviating from a simple ballistic path to release RVs means the Bus’s point of interception can’t be calculated close enough for a hard kill because even a last second shift in direction could cause a miss by hundreds of metres when the closing speed is 10km/s..

PAC-3 does it all the time. And you’re still overlooking one point and that is a KKV can adjust it’s course to match the RVs. As I’ve already said the only way an RV is going to outmanuever a KKV is if it bumps it’s position inside the reaction time of the KKV. IF a target bumps to the side it takes a finite amount of time for the KKV to calculate what it has to do and execute the manuever. In the SMALL amount of time the RV will have had to move itself out of the way. And if the KKV deploys a small cloud of pellets a fraction of a second before impact it makes it all the more likely that the RV won’t get away. Fact of the matter is neither of us is likely to get their hands on the necessary info to PROVE this debate conclusively one way or the other. On the other hand the RV will have to be looking for a KKV (and be able to track it) to do any meaningful evasive manuevering.

Agility has nothing to do with it. An F-16 is far more agile than any known missile, yet F-16s can be shot down by missiles..

Now consider how deadly missiles would be if they were MORE agile than the F-16. Your arguement there actually supports what I’m saying. Think about it.

With RVs it is not the agility, but the speed that is the real issue. With a reentry speed of 5km/s+ and with the interceptor missiles travelling at similar speds a closing speed of 10km/s is easily possible. The interceptor missile is launched to occupy the same space as the target at the time of interception. A very minor change in direction by the target will shift that interception point hundreds of metres, but the interceptor will have to have its whole interception recalculated and then expend a lot of energy to change course to get to the new interception point at the new time. If the target turns back onto its previous course then the interceptor has to then manouver to the new calculated point at the required time. Two or three minor turns and the interceptor might have used up too much energy and not be able to make any interception point before the target hits its target… or gets to the airburst point above its target..

Your basic premise is flawed. KKVs don’t just aim for a “point in space”. What the hell would they need all the IR seekers for if that were the case? Also KKVs can aim for a particular POINT on the incoming RV. THAAD has DEMONSTRATED the ability to hit a specific point within an area on a missile roughly 10″ square. Others operate similarly. As soon as your RV starts to change course the KKV changes it’s. That’s why the fact that a KKV is mostly motor and seeker makes it VERY unlikely that an RV is going to have a prayer of outmanuevering it. It’s best bet would be do have some kind of onboard explosive device oriented perpendicular to the flight path and aligned with its CG. At the VERY last moment it sets it off shifting the RV faster than the KKV can cope with. Do it too soon and the KKV will simply match it.

During DS the official figure was an average of 32 Patriot launches per Scud interception.

Sources?

First of all… bad taste… second reentry itself is a glancing blow on the atmosphere… too shallow and you skip off, too deep and you come in too fast and burn up..

And come in at the planned angle with a damaged heat shield and bad things happen.

But a glancing blow could be tip of a fin scratching paint or it could be more serious. There are too many variables… a bit like a 120mm Tank round could clip the tip of a wing of an Apache and the Apache could continue as if nothing happened or a 30 calibre rifle round could hit the detonator on a weapon under an Apaches wing and destroy the whole aircraft…

Yeah but the Apache doesn’t have to survive reentry. It’s similar to the idea of using a laser on a boosting missile. All you have to do is damage it a little and the operating conditions will finish the job.

No, I mean hitting a weapon in space might result in a premature deployment of multiple warheads over a wide area, instead of a more normal much lower altitude deployment of munitions….

And that could be a problem (ripping open the piniata at high altitude so-to-speak). They’ve run numerous tests on those kinds of targets though and it’s part of the reason they want to be able to choose WHERE on the missile they hit. Hit close enough to the warhead/submunitions and the shock of impact will destroy the whole thing. Kinda like a bullet going through an orange.

The Iskander-E (SS-27) and Tochka-U (SS-21) both have 480kg submunition warhead options…..

That surprises me that it’s that small. Just did a check and ATACMs carries a 560kg submunition warhead about 30% further than SS-21 and weighs a thousand pounds less. (Not trying to get into a p!ssing contest just figured they’d have bigger warheads). Anyway PAC-3 has been tested against submunition warheads and didn’t have any problem with them. Don’t know if THAAD, SM-3 or GBI have been tested against them.

There is a defence line of radars and presumably SAMs over Canada looking north. .

AFAIK the only SAMs of ANY type deployed in the United States are maybe some surface launched AMRAAMs in D.C. All the rest have been removed from service for decades.

Using its height capability to… as you suggest engage targets further south, to reduce the number of systems you would deploy might prove a problem if the enemy fire SLBMs from the Pacific or Atlantic… those SAMS can’t use their height capability to attack missiles that don’t overfly them.

But 1. It’s not going to be able to use that propulsion in space so it’s not going to help it against GBI (the system Putin is boasting it immune to) and 2. The US has no SAMs deployed of any note in the US. At this point one of those Meteorite missiles Russia was working on would have a better chance of impacting in the US than a solitary ICBM. Hell most likely even a subsonic cruise missile would make it.

Well isn’t that obvious? My point is that SM-3 and THAAD are practically brand new even if most of their development period has been during a time when they were limited by the ABM treaty the S-300V system has spent 20 years operationally limited by that system. Obviously while the THAAD and SM-3 are still very young programs they can be “extended”. The S-300V is unlikely to get such an extension and will probably be replaced by a completely new system concept that may or may not reach into space with hit to kill vehicles. (In space hit to kill becomes the best option due to the lack of effect of blast from conventional warheads… but it increases cost and reduces the missiles effectiveness in other areas IMO.).

It’s definitely a trade off. SM-3 is a fraction of the mass of an S-300V and it’s range and speed far outstrip the biggest and baddest S-300V however it’s useless in the atmosphere and costs $17.5 million EACH last I heard. The full-caliber version would likely outstrip even Spartan in the speed and possibly range dept and that thing weighed something like 29,000lbs but it was carrying a very heavy warhead so it had to. Which is part of the reason they’re working on SM-6. SM-6 would go after a similar range of targets to S-300/400 and the SM-3 would be a dedicated exoatmospheric weapon.

There would be very little value hitting those satellites. It would be rather more useful to hit communications satellites over the equator, and GPS satellites that operate much much higher… and the rate they pass Moscow WWIII would be over before enough GPS sats went over Moscow to degrade the system enough to make the effort worth it..

I don’t know, I think knocking out the other guys photo recon satellites would be worth doing. Besides it’s not like these mobile SAMs you’re talking about are going to be able to hit those satellites either.

Ludicrous to think something as pathetic as what Orville and Wilbour Wright built and flew could ever challenge the might battleship for control of the sea. But a bit of money and improvements and it happened. ..

Well you can’t have it both ways. On the one hand you claim it takes 32 Patriots to down a single Scud yet somehow 40 (the max they’re talking about) GBIs is going to make the entire Russian nuclear arsenal obsolete?

There are limits on ICBMs. There are no limits on missiles that can intercept ICBMs…

Money is always a limit.

It wouldn’t cost that much more to make an interceptor than it would to make an ICBM. The US has plenty of money… and STARWARS got Reagan a lot of votes.

But it still takes money. As far a politics all these high military budgets Bush has had have been offset by the deplorable condition his predicessor left the military in. Not to mention the wear and tear it’s getting right now. If we had these same kind of budgets (nearly $500 billion not including the “suppliments”) and no wars going on then I might agree with you. Chances are though it would be used on ship-building and replacing things like tanks, tankers, E-3s, and long range strike before it would all get poured into missile defence. Even now missile defense has taken hits. Both KEI and ABL have had their budgets and time tables cut back recently and space based radar has been slowed down (though this weeks AvWeek had some very interesting info on it- real not fantasy sh!t).

Wow… china could really overwhelm a non operational largely new and nascent NMD system. But add 10 billion in investment and 10 years and can they still do it? Add another 100 billion and another 5-10 years and even if they can still penetrate it it starts to become destabilising… see where this is going? Ohh, the US is only building it for defence. It will only be used for good. Can you imagine if the Russians had an operating nation wide ABM system now? The panic in the US? and this is one and a half decades after the end of the cold war.

I doubt the US would even care if Russia had one. It more dollars they can’t spend on OFFENSIVE weapons. Thing is we’ll likely live to see the day that solidstate lasers are to the point they could be used for ICBM defense. Then you’re back to stealthy intercontinental cruise missiles. There’s even been speculation of Mach 4 supercavitating intercontinental “torpedoes”. Basically gets near shore and pops out a Mach 5 or 6 cruise missile. Measure, countermeasure, counter-countermeasure.

They have to be there anyway… why not give them a dual use? Plus with the range of Trident coverage shouldn’t be a huge issue… but can you think of a situation where you’d actually want to fire 100 warheads at a target right now (ie within 10-15 minutes of spotting it). This would have to be an Osama Bin Laden like target… nothing else would warrant such a system… a military build up on a border, or a few Serb tanks appearing in a forest clearing are hardly the sort of thing you’d be engaging with rods from space.

A surprise Chinese attack across the strait could warrant both the time frame and the “rods from space” approach. As far as Osama if they absolutley KNEW he was in a particular cave it wouldn’t surprise me at this point if they used a nuke to get the *******.

Could simply be a communication error… “How many warheads are we talking about here… about 100”. With one thinking of total numbers and the other person thinking per missile.
Or perhaps being optimistic… enough room to fit 100 steel rod penetrators in a Trident..

Could be.

A Flechette warhead might be for engaging a tank park or an area target.

The problem with using a shotgun round against a point target is that although you are greatly increasing your chance of hitting a small fast moving target with 200 x number 4 shot pellets rather than a single solid slug round you can’t control where each of those pellets hit so from certain distances you can miss the target completely as you have no control over where each projectile lands.

Who knows? At this point it’s probably better to wait for more info.