Asia’s New Arms Race: Missiles, Missile Defenses

[Beholder]

Nope, he's right you are clueless. You and everybody should zip it and let Arty and Puff have a discusion which shell actually be informative.

since two of them actually know their stuff on the said subject.

Missile defense systems in 1970-1980 were able to hit-to-kill ICBMs in test flights, with ability to discriminate decoys. SM-3 has never, EVER been launched against an ICBM. Nor was it ever been launched against any kind of ballistic target that drops decoys or countermeasures.

To me, this is clear evidence that earlier systems were more sophisticated than the current.

This is the third time I have to repeat this. Let this be the last.

Initially, I thought it was quite an uncontroversial statement. America used to be able to do some specific things in rocketry. Then it stopped doing them, so now it has to require the know-how again. No controversy there, in my opinion. All fairly straight-forward and evidence-based. But I guess the e-pеnis goes to some people's heads and they feel the need to DEFEND THE HONOR without thinking.

"In September 1993, DOD acknowledged that there was a deception program associated with HOE. The deception program was started in hopes of affecting Soviet perceptions of U.S. ballistic missile defense capabilities, according to records. Deception was seen as a means of impacting arms control negotiations and influencing Soviet spending. The proposal and contingency plan to use deception evolved in late 1981 and early 1982, after the design and fabrication of experimental hardware had begun. The Secretary of Defense said the deception was discontinued prior to the final test, and so it did not impact the test's outcome. The planned deception was to explode the target if the interceptor failed to hit it but passed close enough to support the appearance of a hit. The Army terminated the deception program in September 1983, prior to the third HOE flight. DOD said, in September 1993, that Congress was not informed of the plan. No statutory requirement existed in 1984 for DOD to inform Congress about special access program activities. Legislation has since required reporting of such programs, starting in 1988."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/hoe.htm

Once again.SM-3 impossible in 70s.Period.

[artjomh]

Please, spare me these games. I can read too...

Records indicate that the contingency deception plan had been in place for the first two tests but did not affect their outcomes.Records of the deception program for HOE show that it was superimposed on the ongoing technical program after the demonstration hardware had been designed and fabricated and that it was discontinued before the third flight. No deceptive explosion occurred on flights 1 and 2 because the interceptor missed the target by too great a distance. The plan was dropped prior to HOE 3. Analyses of HOE 4 test data are consistent with the Army's conclusion that the interceptor and target collided. Records also support the conclusion that the interceptor was guided during its final maneuvers by its onboard infrared sensor. While some hardware related to the deception remained onboard the target, it did not affect the outcome of HOE 4. The hardware to implement a deceptive explosion did not interfere with a normal test intercept.

[Elbs]

If you guys are interested in reading about these things, there is a wealth of knowledge online about Cold War missile defense programs. For starters, browse the DTIC website which has tons of material.

Missile defense systems in 1970-1980 were able to hit-to-kill ICBMs in test flights, with ability to discriminate decoys. SM-3 has never, EVER been launched against an ICBM. Nor was it ever been launched against any kind of ballistic target that drops decoys or countermeasures.

And the HOE test which killed the RV was conducted in a realistic fashion with interceptor launch delay until the target was tracked at what would be an operational range. Art, do you know if there were any similar projects in the FSU that used that radial type warhead, or were they only looking at nukes?

[Elbs]

"In September 1993, DOD acknowledged that there was a deception program associated with HOE. The deception program was started in hopes of affecting Soviet perceptions of U.S. ballistic missile defense capabilities, according to records.

This was refuted in the GAO report on this very question in July 1994. It's available online.

[artjomh]

Art, do you know if there were any similar projects in the FSU that used that radial type warhead, or were they only looking at nukes?

No. Most systems were flight tested with directed fragmentation warhead and designed to be used with a nuclear warhead.

There were also missile defense projects that involved microwave radiation bombardment and lasers, but most died in R&D and testing stage.

[Beholder]

Please, spare me these games. I can read too...

Then read to the end:

"
Late in the program development, the Army decided to enhance the target's infrared visibility due to uncertainties over sensor performance. The enhancements were the result of (1) flying the target in an orientation that presented its side toward the interceptor and (2) heating the target to 100 degrees Fahrenheit prior to launch. These enhancements resulted in an infrared signature closer to the high end of the range of expected threat signatures. The target radiated about 10 times more IR [infrared] energy than that expected from today's Soviet RV [reentry vehicle]. DOD While enhancements of the target's infrared signature weakened one part of the demonstration, some believed it was a reasonable decision for this early technology demonstration considering the alternatives of (1) risking failure of the entire experiment or (2) investing additional time and money improving the sensor."
-------------------------
At best concept demonstrator with uncertain hit probability.Technologies for actual SM-3 where available in early-mid 90s.Even if they heavily invested,i really doubt US would be able to field it sooner.

[artjomh]

And what is your point? SM-3 can't do it either.

We are talking relative capabilities, after all.

[Beholder]

And what is your point? SM-3 can't do it either.

We are talking relative capabilities, after all.

My point that SM-3 can do it.
Because of difference in seeker and algorithm.
Relative capabilities SU and US where roughly same in 70s(nothing really compared with today).Both relied on nuke for BMD.
If someone think that 10-15 years means nothing...well i guess there is no difference between SM-3 blocks,after all what does it matter IR,or IIR,only 8 years right?
A well,i'll go to sleep.

[artjomh]

No tests = no capability.

This is like saying that Iran can launch ICBMs at US, when they have never launched one...

Oh, wait...

[[RNZE]Sapper]

Didn't read the whole thread. But a couple of random thoughts.

1)If ABM has gotten to the stage where a nuclear strike is no longer an issue. Does that signal a return of mass scale conventional warfare?


2)A full fledged nuclear first or second strike is "Samson" in nature. I.e. let's die together buddy. If the US ABM can provent China from "Samson-ing". Can China create a doomsday device with a dead man switch ON Chinese soil with enough tonnage that will create a nuclear winter to kill every body on earth? Thus rebalancing the MAD equilibrium? Or is the whole nuclear winter deal debunked now days?

[C.Puffs]

I'll admit I don't know much on this topic, but what would make hitting an ICBM easier than a satellite? A satellite moves in a predictable trajectory and has no decoys and countermeasures even if it moves faster perhaps? ICBM's have all of those things.
Doesn't make sense to me.

The satellite is moving faster. When an ICBM is in space it also moves in a predictable trajectory albeit slower.

[C.Puffs]

This thread is sad.

- sepheronx is sad because he thinks everything has to be about Russia and we can't have a serious discussion that doesn't concern it.

- C.Puffs is sad because instead of talking talking about relative merits of Reagan-era and Obama-era missile defense, he gets all defensive for no good reason despite me not attacking him at all.

Where did I "get defensive"? For you to claim THAAD, SM-3, and GBI haven't intercepted anything but SCUD analogs suggests you either A. are clueless, or B. are lying. Which is it?

[artjomh]

Where did I "get defensive"? For you to claim THAAD, SM-3, and GBI haven't intercepted anything but SCUD analogs suggests you either A. are clueless, or B. are lying. Which is it?

There was news of an intercept a couple of months ago, and the target missile the were using was clearly a Scud analogue. Not Scud itself, but definitely something in the medium-range. I even asked you for the target's model, if that refreshes your memory.

[shinigami]

Those Chinese media rants about the BMD in Asia. With them not only pointing ballistic missiles towards Taiwan, but now Philippine, Vietnam, Japan etc, what do you expect? Of course someone will come up with a BMD shield.

Talking about BMD,especially ship based, I think the US has been developing it , with Japan for quite some time.

I vaguely remember a Taiwanese military magazine, 軍事家, talking about BMD testings on USS Lake Erie, USS Bunker Hill and USS Mobile Bay, back in late 1990s.

http://www.mod.go.jp/trdi/research/G3/G3-2.pdf
http://www.mod.go.jp/trdi/research/d...t_day/R4-2.pdf

These are only in Japanese but think of to understand.




FPS-XX radar system Japanese BMD, detection range estimated at 5000/6000km the platform has three antennas on each side operates in band X or L or S, the platform side changes according to the type of target to be detected there is two of these operational and two under construction.
They were built in high places in the mountains to expand the capacity of detection.

[MRAPer]

Didn't read the whole thread. But a couple of random thoughts.

1)If ABM has gotten to the stage where a nuclear strike is no longer an issue. Does that signal a return of mass scale conventional warfare?


2)A full fledged nuclear first or second strike is "Samson" in nature. I.e. let's die together buddy. If the US ABM can provent China from "Samson-ing". Can China create a doomsday device with a dead man switch ON Chinese soil with enough tonnage that will create a nuclear winter to kill every body on earth? Thus rebalancing the MAD equilibrium? Or is the whole nuclear winter deal debunked now days?

1. BMD was only "successful" in Cold War disinformation. It will remains ineffective for a long time, so nuclear strike delivered by ICBM will be relevant in the foreseeable future.

2. There is no reason whatsoever for China to construct a suicide bomb. China, or Russia, or any country can always overcome BMD by building more missiles, because it is more cost effective to build missiles than building BMD system. The side that attempts to establish a really effective BMD will eventually lose because of exhaustion of financial resources.