• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

China Conducts Ballistic Missile Intercept Test

the Ageis defense system can launch SM-3 anti ballistic missile.
The 3 has a 2000k range 1500 k ceiling and flys at Mach 8.8
It was tested once I know of on a satellite with a decaying orbit successfully.

The THADD will work for reentry vehicles out to 200 k and a ceiling of 150 k flight speed Mach 8.
One ageis ashore is in Guam.
The thing about missile defense is it would take hundreds of them to stop everything. There are no realistic 100 % success scenarios in a strategic launch.
No one is going to spend the money to maintain that kind extensive of a system for a what if, and then keep it updated for 40 or 50 years.
Need just enough to take the chances of a debilitating strategic strike off the table.
 
I’m sure a great deal has been learned from Israeli iron dome. Even though it is used against mostly short range atmospheric missiles. There is a whole lot involved in the detection and assignment of which inbounds they actually target or in setting priority.
“The systems and targeting aspect of the whole system.

With the introduction of maneuverable reentry vehicles a system such as the THADD seems to be more useful because it is protecting the terminal target not any hypothetical flight path.
Thus I would think building on a two stage defense like the SM-3 intercepting launches from China or Russia in mid flight and THADD defending likely targets. (BTW THADD is a TEL launch system)

Just thinking out loud.
Main thing it seems is run with what we now have and start building if we’re serious about it.
 
Obreid said:
the Ageis defense system can launch SM-3 anti ballistic missile.
The 3 has a 2000k range 1500 k ceiling and flys at Mach 8.8
It was tested once I know of on a satellite with a decaying orbit successfully.

The THADD will work for reentry vehicles out to 200 k and a ceiling of 150 k flight speed Mach 8.
One ageis ashore is in Guam.
The thing about missile defense is it would take hundreds of them to stop everything. There are no realistic 100 % success scenarios in a strategic launch.
No one is going to spend the money to maintain that kind extensive of a system for a what if, and then keep it updated for 40 or 50 years.
Need just enough to take the chances of a debilitating strategic strike off the table.
Click to expand...
"The thing about missile defense is it would take hundreds of them to stop everything. There are no realistic 100 % success scenarios in a strategic launch."
Just put up a fence line of low yield nucs with overlapping shockwaves. https://www.quora.com/Will-a-nuclea...have-damage-other-than-shrapnel-flying-around Nothing is going to get through that. It would not work for short range launches from subs. That's where our hunter killers come in. Take them out as soon as they open their tubes or hatches. Missile interceptors could be used if they got anything off.
 
So beyond it being a protective force or a danger that stops the ability for other countries to strike with ICBMS. Have you ever through it could be a protective force against possibly unauthorized launches/rogue launches? And you have to think with all the technological problems that go on with deployed systems: what inhibits the ability of a foreign nation using same launch platforms from destroying a countries own missiles?
 
ZedBoy said:
So beyond it being a protective force or a danger that stops the ability for other countries to strike with ICBMS. Have you ever through it could be a protective force against possibly unauthorized launches/rogue launches? And you have to think with all the technological problems that go on with deployed systems: what inhibits the ability of a foreign nation using same launch platforms from destroying a countries own missiles?
Click to expand...
Yes I did think that that is why I stipulated a “strategic” launch.
My post was to point out there are already some missile defense systems out there that are already in service. And that all is not lost and China isn’t decades ahead of us.
Washington already has some surface to air cruise missiles defensive systems around the capital. I am I aware of any THADD terminal ballistic systems around Washington but I would not be surprised.
 
ZedBoy said:
protective force or a danger that stops the ability for other countries to strike with ICBMS
Click to expand...
Not when there are hundreds to thousands of them raining down at once. No matter how good any system is, it can be overrun/overwhelmed hence why we have thousands of them to make any anti ballistic system pretty much useless in a full scale nuclear exchange.
ZedBoy said:
what inhibits the ability of a foreign nation using same launch platforms from destroying a countries own missiles?
Click to expand...
MAD & the nuclear triad. Sure you could get some out of the thousands of nuclear weapons before they launch in a first strike.

Say you manage to strike a nations ICBM'S before they launch, won't make a lick of difference for US or Russia as they have subs with just as many nuclear missiles and bombers. Impossible to get them all let alone even 10% being a gracious figure.
 
Last edited:
DEFCON Warning System said:
The U.S. better get its head out of its backside and start working on a real missile defense system.
Click to expand...
This is the difference between a Department of War and a Department of Defense. A Department of Defense would have the budget, resources, programs, milestones, and specific near-term goals for actual DEFENSE of its people. This would of course include a priority of real, working missile defense system against ICBMs. After all, who would be engaged in a War Department's foreign wars, without a Defense Department's defensive systems to protect its public at home. It is not rational. The USA War Department can use symantics to call itself a "Defense" Department, but a Defense Department's mission priority is to "defend" its people, which would of course include a missile defense system (among many other defense-centric investments).

But a military-industrial "captialist" complex that has a profit system based on building weapons and services for foreign war, rather than priorities for national defense, would not find as much profit in national "defense." This is the Achilles Heel in the USA capitalist system. In the end, it works similar to shark-like racketeer gangs who would bleed their marks dry, and then move on to find new marks, rather than care about their survival. Serious discussions on defense raises serious questions that they don't want the public to discuss. (You can't even call this military-industrial "capiitalist" complex as laissez-faire capitalism, as laissez-faire capitalism (by definitiion) has a minimal concern for societal peace.)

The need for defense, and of course a real ICBM missile defense system, is so obvious that even a dictatorial regime repressing the most fellow human beings (1.4 billion) on Earth, the Communist Chinese Party regime of the PRC, can understand and ACT on this. A regime that persecutes and tracks its people without freedoms. A regime with concentration camps of Uighurs and other religious/ethnic minorities. A regime where political freedom is non-existent. A regime where freedom of expression and religious freedom are crimes. A regime so oppressive and cruel it would run over its citizens with tanks when they protest for democracy. A regime that, in writing , views universal human rights with contempt. Even that CCP regime understands the basic need for a working ICBM missile defense system. And despite the criminal CCP regime's contempt for universal human rights, on big threat to Chinese lives (COVID-19, ICBM missile defense), it does understand that the human rights of human life matters for the majority of its citizen.

To be clear, I am a long-time, very vocal, very active opponent of the CCP criminal regime. But when that criminal regime understands national defense better than the USA, then U.S. public need to start asking themselves really hard questions.
 
Obreid said:
Yes I did think that that is why I stipulated a “strategic” launch.
My post was to point out there are already some missile defense systems out there that are already in service. And that all is not lost and China isn’t decades ahead of us.
Washington already has some surface to air cruise missiles defensive systems around the capital. I am I aware of any THADD terminal ballistic systems around Washington but I would not be surprised.
Click to expand...
That's great, Obreid.
In the DMV area, we can roll out THAAD defenses regarding extremists with box-cutters hijacking passenger jets. (That is, unless we have plane-loads of brave martyrs like 2001's Flight 93, willing to give their lives for a country that does not care about their lives or safety.)
In the middle of the Atlantic and Pacific, our ships have Aegis systems from the last century too. It will help take down reachable missiles from the last century.
But we have untold billions of dollars for foreign wars and for the military-industrial complex to build weapons for foreign wars. Like a football team spending lots of money on a QB and RBs, but no defense team, so the other team can just rack up points on the team, basically at will.
 
DarkNoon said:
Not when there are hundreds to thousands of them raining down at once. ...., won't make a lick of difference
Click to expand...
The military-industrial complex will always find it too expensive and ineffective to invest in actual defensive measures in USA, but building weapons for foreign wars to kill other people, well the U.S. taxpayers must always have money for THAT.

Lawless criminal protection rackets argue that citizens need organized crime protection of their homes or citizens, by paying rackets that go around attacking others. They get away with it in societies with ineffective law enforcement or accountable elected representatives that will stand up to them. But the protection rackets always want more, more, more. And someone outside the law ends up stopping them. As a boy, I used to have a newspaper route. A guy with a knife always wanted my money, and police could care less, until one day, I had enough and beat him up.

We won't see it today, but foundational cracks in USA keep building around the failure to have accomplishments in actual U.S. defense, and it dependency only on Cold-War era M.A.D. A military-industrial complex that clearly does not even pretend to "prioritize" defense of its public, demanding endless billions of dollars for foreign wars, is only going to sell that story for so long. It creates a foundational crack in representative government, in the economy, among patriotic citizens, and even in some in the military itself. No one wants to live a lie, either individually or as a society. Responsible people step in and work to guide such societies from going off the tracks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom