Not Quite, the Development of longer ranged CIWS like Laser CIWS, RAM block 2, ect are making the chance of killing systems like BrahMos harder to wield effectively.
The Range of the Missile Defense systems varies from things like GBI which cover whole continents down to Irondome which cover villages. To say that this makes missile defense obsolete is disingenuous at best.
It is my understanding that Laser based Close In Weapons Systems like this one are being developed to counter the threat than High speed Missiles present. So yeah, you stand a good chance of being right.
A low flying supersonic object will not be stealthy at all.
There is nothing inherently unstealthy about supersonic. The F-22 is supersonic [cruise] and stealthy.
Heat. Supersonic at low levels means lots of heat. Moving fast at low speeds makes it easier to find you in the radar clutter as we can filter out everything moving bellow say, 500 miles and hour.
I believe what the GP meant (and how I interpreted what he wrote) is that there's no apparent benefit of a supersonic cruise missile over a supersonic ballistic missile. If you are going for speed, it can be detected, so you might as well make the missile ballistic and go for maximum speed.
Except, I can shoot down your ballistic missiles a whole lot easier than I can your Cruise missiles because your ballistic missiles are over the horizon for a lot longer. Literally shooting down ICBMs is easy - think skeet shooting with computers, and you have a good idea. Systems integration is a bitch, but it always will be.
Wow. Did you take stupid pills or something? 1. We can look at he fallout and see where the original material came from that made the bomb. 2. We have this thing called "Radar", it lets us track things that come toward us in the air. We've only had it for 60+ years, so you might have missed it.
Torpedos hit submarines. When missiles try to hit submarines they explode on the surface. And it is a lot harder to go supersonic underwater (for two reasons).
Someone forgot about the ASROC and the SS-N-16. Both use Missiles to launch either a torpedo or a depth charge at an enemy ship or sub.
This is incorrect. In the late 1950's the US developed the 'Hound Dog' AGM-28 (GAM-77/GAM-77A under the designation system at the time). In Service in 1960, the Hound Dog was unique in that the turbojet that it carried could be run off of the carrying B-52's fuel, practically allowing the use of the engines on Both Hound Dogs during takeoff. While not as fast as BrahMos, the Hound Dog could fly Three and a half times further, and could carry a nuclear weapon (no doubt in my mind that the Indias have a nuclear BrahMos in the works).
Why do any work at all? The closed captioning data is all there, and is searchable. Plus if you click the transcript, it takes you to that part of the video.
Someone above me mentioned Metadata - the Closed caption data is already included in a search-able form, this we don't need to regenerate the metadata.
Also now I can direct link to Obama saying "It helps in Ohio that we got Democrats in charge of the machines" (relating to the election infrastructure).
As any man who thought it was a good idea to model the Earth's climate as if it were a smooth, rock sphere with no oceans, and no plant life so his model would generate "Nuclear Winter" should be.
Range does determine if it is an ICBM, and of the SLBMs, only Trident when carrying a limited warhead bus (say 4-8 warheads) has the range to be called an ICBM, the others are IRBMs or MRBMs.
And also shows how silly it is to have what is basically a civil job being done by the Army.
The history of the Army Corps of Engineers dates back to the creation of West Point, when it was the best engineering school in the nation, mostly because it was the biggest. You want to give your army officers something to do, so they don't plan to overthrow the civilian government.;)
Ballistic missiles don't like to spin, because it does nasty things to the fuel (which has the consistency of an eraser), and to the walls of the missile itself (these things are quite thin for mass reasons).
1. ICBMs don't spin. The structure and the solid fuel don't like the stresses.
2. That's a whole lot of weight you're adding, which means fewer warheads coming at me. Virtual Attrition for the Win.
3. Oh really? the US is working on a Laser package that fits into the bay of an F-35.
4. Decoys don't work. For a decoy to work it has to have the exact same: Mass, Thermal properties, EM reflective properties, ect of a real warhead, or we can ignore it. If you have to go through that, then you might as well add a new warhead. It is also worth noting that there was only one loadout of decoys ever deployed operationally on an SSBN, and none were ever deployed on ICBMs.
Orbital Lasers were one option, the issue is that the current lasers that have the needed power output are chemical, which means you get a handful of shots before you need to reload. Once we build a powerful enough Solid state laser, then you just need to orbit a big solar array and a nuclear reactor, and you're ready to go for quite a while.
The best option is a system of systems, that way any opposition has to counter a whole lot of things.
And besides, you can figure out areas where SSBNs are based on the missiles targets and range, then looking at the geography of those areas (why do you think that HMS Vanguard (S28) and Le Triomphant (S616) colided?)
On the way down, what you are faced with is a VERY fast moving object (assuming you don't target the countermeasures) that has already demonstrated that it can resist the high temperatures of re-entry and consists of very little in the way of combustible materials. It can also employ a variety of measures to alter its trajectory (more than on the way up).
A few minor points:
1. It can resist predictable high temperatures, for a limited amount of time, if I heat up part of the RV that isn't designed to get quite as hot, I can cause the whole thing to tumble and fail.
2. It doesn't have to explode, I just have to make it slightly less aerodynamic, and let friction do the rest.
3. So called "Maneuvering RVs" don't change trajectory all that much. Mostly they make very fine adjustments so they hit their target, not to avoid things coming at them.
No. Because even if you only absorb.1% of the light, that.1% will turn into heat and the material starts to break down, and very quickly that.1% becomes.5%, then 1%, then 10% then you get failure from thermal stresses.
No, the SDI program did go somewhere, it's called the Ground Based Interceptor and the Air-Borne Laser (YAL-1A, not the program mentioned in TFA), both of which you can blame President ZerObama for gutting!
Slashdot Mirror
Not Quite, the Development of longer ranged CIWS like Laser CIWS, RAM block 2, ect are making the chance of killing systems like BrahMos harder to wield effectively.
The Range of the Missile Defense systems varies from things like GBI which cover whole continents down to Irondome which cover villages. To say that this makes missile defense obsolete is disingenuous at best.
It is my understanding that Laser based Close In Weapons Systems like this one are being developed to counter the threat than High speed Missiles present. So yeah, you stand a good chance of being right.
Nor the first to deploy
A low flying supersonic object will not be stealthy at all.
There is nothing inherently unstealthy about supersonic. The F-22 is supersonic [cruise] and stealthy.
Heat. Supersonic at low levels means lots of heat. Moving fast at low speeds makes it easier to find you in the radar clutter as we can filter out everything moving bellow say, 500 miles and hour.
I believe what the GP meant (and how I interpreted what he wrote) is that there's no apparent benefit of a supersonic cruise missile over a supersonic ballistic missile. If you are going for speed, it can be detected, so you might as well make the missile ballistic and go for maximum speed.
Except, I can shoot down your ballistic missiles a whole lot easier than I can your Cruise missiles because your ballistic missiles are over the horizon for a lot longer. Literally shooting down ICBMs is easy - think skeet shooting with computers, and you have a good idea. Systems integration is a bitch, but it always will be.
Wow. Did you take stupid pills or something?
1. We can look at he fallout and see where the original material came from that made the bomb.
2. We have this thing called "Radar", it lets us track things that come toward us in the air. We've only had it for 60+ years, so you might have missed it.
I mentioned this before, but people never seem to remember the Hound Dog:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-28_Hound_Dog
Torpedos hit submarines. When missiles try to hit submarines they explode on the surface. And it is a lot harder to go supersonic underwater (for two reasons).
Someone forgot about the ASROC and the SS-N-16. Both use Missiles to launch either a torpedo or a depth charge at an enemy ship or sub.
The first?
This is incorrect. In the late 1950's the US developed the 'Hound Dog' AGM-28 (GAM-77/GAM-77A under the designation system at the time). In Service in 1960, the Hound Dog was unique in that the turbojet that it carried could be run off of the carrying B-52's fuel, practically allowing the use of the engines on Both Hound Dogs during takeoff. While not as fast as BrahMos, the Hound Dog could fly Three and a half times further, and could carry a nuclear weapon (no doubt in my mind that the Indias have a nuclear BrahMos in the works).
Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-28_Hound_Dog
Why do any work at all? The closed captioning data is all there, and is searchable. Plus if you click the transcript, it takes you to that part of the video.
Someone above me mentioned Metadata - the Closed caption data is already included in a search-able form, this we don't need to regenerate the metadata.
Also now I can direct link to Obama saying "It helps in Ohio that we got Democrats in charge of the machines" (relating to the election infrastructure).
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/280876-1 (34:31)
As any man who thought it was a good idea to model the Earth's climate as if it were a smooth, rock sphere with no oceans, and no plant life so his model would generate "Nuclear Winter" should be.
May the fraud never rest in peace.
Range does determine if it is an ICBM, and of the SLBMs, only Trident when carrying a limited warhead bus (say 4-8 warheads) has the range to be called an ICBM, the others are IRBMs or MRBMs.
And also shows how silly it is to have what is basically a civil job being done by the Army.
The history of the Army Corps of Engineers dates back to the creation of West Point, when it was the best engineering school in the nation, mostly because it was the biggest. You want to give your army officers something to do, so they don't plan to overthrow the civilian government. ;)
Chevaline
A. Didn't work (notice how quickly it was pulled from service)
B. Was on Polaris an SLBM, not an ICBM. The Brits never deployed ICBMs.
C. Was a development of "Antelope" the system that the US rejected after putting it on one Boat for one cruise
D. Cut the range of the Polaris Missile by roughly 22%, reducing the operating area of the Resolution Class by a significant margin.
You would need a broad-based stealth for that to work, and you need to be stealthy in the IR as well.
That gets very expensive very quickly.
Ballistic missiles don't like to spin, because it does nasty things to the fuel (which has the consistency of an eraser), and to the walls of the missile itself (these things are quite thin for mass reasons).
1. ICBMs don't spin. The structure and the solid fuel don't like the stresses.
2. That's a whole lot of weight you're adding, which means fewer warheads coming at me. Virtual Attrition for the Win.
3. Oh really? the US is working on a Laser package that fits into the bay of an F-35.
4. Decoys don't work. For a decoy to work it has to have the exact same: Mass, Thermal properties, EM reflective properties, ect of a real warhead, or we can ignore it. If you have to go through that, then you might as well add a new warhead. It is also worth noting that there was only one loadout of decoys ever deployed operationally on an SSBN, and none were ever deployed on ICBMs.
Gah what is it with stupid people and mirrors!
Aluminium mirrors top out at about 93% reflectivity. A kilowatt level laser killed an astronomical mirror in the 1980's during an SDI test.
Plus, by adding mirrors to your ICBM, you've just cut the payload by, oh a good 90%. This means that you can only lob one warhead at me instead of 10.
This is called "Virtual attrition", and is the same reason why no one ever deployed decoys on ICBMs.
Orbital Lasers were one option, the issue is that the current lasers that have the needed power output are chemical, which means you get a handful of shots before you need to reload. Once we build a powerful enough Solid state laser, then you just need to orbit a big solar array and a nuclear reactor, and you're ready to go for quite a while.
And it did, after they proxmired it to death, and then Obama gutted it.
Here's to Hope (that everyone will love us) and Change (from being a world superpower)!
People also forget we had a system in the 1960s and 1970s, but the Left killed it then too.
The best option is a system of systems, that way any opposition has to counter a whole lot of things.
And besides, you can figure out areas where SSBNs are based on the missiles targets and range, then looking at the geography of those areas (why do you think that HMS Vanguard (S28) and Le Triomphant (S616) colided?)
On the way down, what you are faced with is a VERY fast moving object (assuming you don't target the countermeasures) that has already demonstrated that it can resist the high temperatures of re-entry and consists of very little in the way of combustible materials. It can also employ a variety of measures to alter its trajectory (more than on the way up).
A few minor points:
1. It can resist predictable high temperatures, for a limited amount of time, if I heat up part of the RV that isn't designed to get quite as hot, I can cause the whole thing to tumble and fail.
2. It doesn't have to explode, I just have to make it slightly less aerodynamic, and let friction do the rest.
3. So called "Maneuvering RVs" don't change trajectory all that much. Mostly they make very fine adjustments so they hit their target, not to avoid things coming at them.
No. Because even if you only absorb .1% of the light, that .1% will turn into heat and the material starts to break down, and very quickly that .1% becomes .5%, then 1%, then 10% then you get failure from thermal stresses.
No, the SDI program did go somewhere, it's called the Ground Based Interceptor and the Air-Borne Laser (YAL-1A, not the program mentioned in TFA), both of which you can blame President ZerObama for gutting!