Will they use depleted uranium? I keep hearing a friend saying he's agaist the ABM because missles will use DU. From what I know, DU is used to penetrate armour because it is so dense, so why would it be used in NMD?
Question about NMD
- Thread starter Martin
- Start date
im pretty sure ur friend is wrong ... u are right, it is used to pierce armour and used as armour on our tanks
and there are about a million other reasons why NMD is a horrible idea
and there are about a million other reasons why NMD is a horrible idea
2 missles traveling at mach 25 is enough to destroy both of them. No UD would be required, plus the UD would be on the heavy side to lift that altitude.
Precisely what I was thinking. What's more AFAIK, the missles won't even have to collide, the interceptor would simply have to get within several hundred meters and explode, taking the other missle down with it.
why is you friend against ABM because it's DU, does he realize that the interceptor is destroying an IBCM?
After all that arguing, I am still not sure why he is against it. I think its because his party (NDP) is, so he just follows suit, even if their arguments don't make any sense.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
A KEWE (Kenetic Energy WEapon) would use a compact projectile in order to minimize vehicle packaging.
Inertia calculations use E=MV2 (Energy equal to Mass times Velocity Squared) a DU projectile of say 45 Kilos
would have the same impact energy, reguardless of size, but a higher mass density means that the unit
would take up much less volume. Since it could be of smaller size, more of the weapon envelope would be
dedicated to propulsion, bigger boost vehicle provides higher initial acceleration and with a larger fuel volume
you realize a higher terminal velocity (Closing Velocity), a chance to hit the target quicker.
Additional benifit from the smaller projectile would come from a smaller diameter object able to penetrate
deeper into the target, and with the brittleness of the DU it would fragment - and those particles themselves
would continue to penetrate and damage additional equipment. As the damaged target vehicle fell into a
re-entry path, the extra damage would lead to a quicker breakup of the target vehicle and provide more area
of burn-up during the re-entry. Another benift from DU is that it is Pyrophoric in nature, which means it will
ignite and burn at high tempertures (kind of like Magnesium) upon exposure to oxygen upon a freshly exposed
fractured surface, so it would aid in the incineration of the falling vehicle, again reducing the possibility of any
large peices surviving re-entry and striking populated areas. The radiation risk is minimal compared to that of
the potential danger from the warhead of the target vehicle.
Brilliant Pebbles
*Note: There is a minor flaw in the oposing discussion where there is mention of nations objecting; tracking; Etc.
The weapon is designed to linger in a quasi-geosynchronous orbit and 'Lock' over a potential unfriendly country
for an extended period of time before orbital mechanics move it out of phase, while the next set ranges in.
These defensive clusters would be more manageable, and keep multiple defensive 'Pods' in critical areas.
Launch from ground to deployment altitude of an ICBM is to between 700 to 750 miles, and takes approximately
10 minutes to that altitude, alignment and deployment of said warhead put's it on the ground between 25 to 35.
minutes after initial launch. (Deployment utilizes gravity and spin momentum to bring the warhead down to the target)
Reading the launch from ground and picking off that rocket during it's secondary boost phase ensures the highest
closing velocities and most damage to the targeted vehicle. Hit ANY part of the target and it's finished/
Inertia calculations use E=MV2 (Energy equal to Mass times Velocity Squared) a DU projectile of say 45 Kilos
would have the same impact energy, reguardless of size, but a higher mass density means that the unit
would take up much less volume. Since it could be of smaller size, more of the weapon envelope would be
dedicated to propulsion, bigger boost vehicle provides higher initial acceleration and with a larger fuel volume
you realize a higher terminal velocity (Closing Velocity), a chance to hit the target quicker.
Additional benifit from the smaller projectile would come from a smaller diameter object able to penetrate
deeper into the target, and with the brittleness of the DU it would fragment - and those particles themselves
would continue to penetrate and damage additional equipment. As the damaged target vehicle fell into a
re-entry path, the extra damage would lead to a quicker breakup of the target vehicle and provide more area
of burn-up during the re-entry. Another benift from DU is that it is Pyrophoric in nature, which means it will
ignite and burn at high tempertures (kind of like Magnesium) upon exposure to oxygen upon a freshly exposed
fractured surface, so it would aid in the incineration of the falling vehicle, again reducing the possibility of any
large peices surviving re-entry and striking populated areas. The radiation risk is minimal compared to that of
the potential danger from the warhead of the target vehicle.
Brilliant Pebbles
*Note: There is a minor flaw in the oposing discussion where there is mention of nations objecting; tracking; Etc.
The weapon is designed to linger in a quasi-geosynchronous orbit and 'Lock' over a potential unfriendly country
for an extended period of time before orbital mechanics move it out of phase, while the next set ranges in.
These defensive clusters would be more manageable, and keep multiple defensive 'Pods' in critical areas.
Launch from ground to deployment altitude of an ICBM is to between 700 to 750 miles, and takes approximately
10 minutes to that altitude, alignment and deployment of said warhead put's it on the ground between 25 to 35.
minutes after initial launch. (Deployment utilizes gravity and spin momentum to bring the warhead down to the target)
Reading the launch from ground and picking off that rocket during it's secondary boost phase ensures the highest
closing velocities and most damage to the targeted vehicle. Hit ANY part of the target and it's finished/
The problem I have with the National Missle defense system is not so much its legality as its feasibility. My father worked for a think tank that did some scientific research for the Government during Reagen's failed SETI program. Among many, many, technical issues, he found that the estimated cost of a system, assuming it works, is ten times as great as the amound the opponent spends on making their missles harder to hit (i.e. MIRVs, etc.).
And such is game. For every tactical advantage, there is a counter to it. Not developing NMD seems to be a bad idea as ICBM technology begins to proliferate around the globe.
I have some friends working over at SMDC, Strategic Missile Defence Command, and CaptnKirk pretty much summed it up. I wanted to reiterate that the biggest challenge is hitting a missile travelling at mach whatever while your own missile is travelling at mach whatever in the opposite direction.
IIRC we have only had one sucessful test and I believe that it was luck. There were also at least 10 misses!
IIRC we have only had one sucessful test and I believe that it was luck. There were also at least 10 misses!
i would love too see the data saying that only one has failed, because its more like only one has actually hit.
and that doesnt account for ANY countermeasures. there are tons of ways around nmd. MIRVs is one. decoys have worked before (esp. ballon decoys). and in this day and age, what seems to be the biggest threat? a rogue ICBM or a terrorist? if someone wanted to nuke the u.s. do u think they would try to launch it or do the classis suitcase bomb? we have spent billions and billions of dollars on NMD and it doesnt work. bush realizes this as he has asked congress to put NMD into production by skipping testing! he knows the only way NMD wont come about is if it continues to fail, so he is trying to go around that
and that doesnt account for ANY countermeasures. there are tons of ways around nmd. MIRVs is one. decoys have worked before (esp. ballon decoys). and in this day and age, what seems to be the biggest threat? a rogue ICBM or a terrorist? if someone wanted to nuke the u.s. do u think they would try to launch it or do the classis suitcase bomb? we have spent billions and billions of dollars on NMD and it doesnt work. bush realizes this as he has asked congress to put NMD into production by skipping testing! he knows the only way NMD wont come about is if it continues to fail, so he is trying to go around that
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
Current trend in NMD is target designation based on that which the Partiot missle uses, with
refinements being worked out. With the sophistication of control some of the 'Failures' are in
part successes, as telemetery data shows some degree of sucess, reguardless of limitation.
Multi-chaffe decoys or 'Cones' used to be the way to confuse targeting, but blak body radiation
and comparison to the 3 degree background radiation of space lets you onserve which mass has
the warhead, as the mass retains it's thermal image, while a decoy quickly drops in temperature
and the plunging temperature of the decoy stands out. Definition only takes a couple of seconds
after deployment, but remember - we try to take it down early in the boost phase, not after deployment.
refinements being worked out. With the sophistication of control some of the 'Failures' are in
part successes, as telemetery data shows some degree of sucess, reguardless of limitation.
Multi-chaffe decoys or 'Cones' used to be the way to confuse targeting, but blak body radiation
and comparison to the 3 degree background radiation of space lets you onserve which mass has
the warhead, as the mass retains it's thermal image, while a decoy quickly drops in temperature
and the plunging temperature of the decoy stands out. Definition only takes a couple of seconds
after deployment, but remember - we try to take it down early in the boost phase, not after deployment.
I have developed an idea, after seeing this experimented with in destroying mines. Make a net out of something sturdy with explosives attached to it (a huge net, miles wide). Attach rockets to the outside corners of it, anchor the other side to the ground, and send it up like a giant runway net. This must be cheaper than an ABM. Also, what about stringing up a net between 4 such missiles...that way, you wouldn't have to be as accurate. Or does this seem totally off the wall?
I would build my warhead here if I were the enemy. Why deliver it through the air. A truck or boat or plane would be much easier or just a local detonation.
Well, if we knew that the only type of attack we had to worry about is one of the nature which you describe, we probably wouldn't worry about ABM's. However, since this is not the case, we have to worry about other avenues.
The arms race is a form of psychosis, of fear, of the projection onto the outside, the enemy, of our own self hate. We fear the world because we hate it and see everywhere we look that hate staring back at us. We are the world. We create what we fear.
There is no salvation for humanity except that we learn to love.
But in fear, there is salvation.
-----------------------------
In feeling your fear and finding its source there is, but what did you mean?
-----------------------------
In feeling your fear and finding its source there is, but what did you mean?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter