-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
US Bombers Sent to Guam Following Spy Plane Incident with North Korea
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Grasshopper27
Banned
No, there hasn't...
This is why Iraq is first, the military is currently running these programs at full speed to get the weapon systems up and running as quickly as possible.
1. The Airborne Laser
2. THADD (Theater High-Altitude Area Defense)
3. Ground Based Interceptor (part 1 of the National Missile Defense system)
The laser was installed in the modified 747-400F last month and tests will be done in the following months. That combined with the first prototype THADD systems will be deployed to the East Asian Theater later this year (the first missiles actually were delivered to Japan in December, but they aren't operational yet). The Ground Intercepters will be installed in early 2004 which is when I'd expect we'd go to war with North Korea if we have to.
The combition of those three systems should be able to intercept and shoot down any nuclear ballistic missiles N. Korea launches in such a war.
: ) Hopper
NorthRiver
Golden Member
Yes they do!
I'm not sure you want to get into a position where you want to test those systems. The airbourne laser has a long pedigree that only now *may* be anywhere near working (I'm a laser physicist). Reliable defense projects usually take decades - I'm not sure how long 2 and 3 have behind them. Anyway - my point of view is that we should not allow ourselves to be put in such a position where the US feels it must act. We are certainly not there now and there is no good reason to be there after Iraq has gone the way it seems to be heading.
If I was a religious man - I'd be praying right now that the above scenario doesn't play out.
Andy
Grasshopper27
Banned
The laser has been in development for 20+ years.
The difference today is computer power. The laser just couldn't destroy targets far away because it difuses too quickly in the air. No problem, have hundreds of computer controled mini-mirrors adjusted a thousand times a second to "correct" the beam and poof, you have a laser that can hit a target 100 miles away and blow it up.
They have already done ground tests and destroyed missiles launched dozens of miles away, it will work even better at 40,000ft with 2/3 less air in the way.
THADD was in development during the first gulf war, it is indeed mature. The ground based intercepters are the big wild card. They still don't really work right and shouldn't be counted on. Still, that being said, no reason not to give them a try if it all fails.
We cannot allow North Korea to keep nuclear weapons. Force will probably be required to remove them.
: ) Hopper
Grasshopper27
Banned
Destroy it...
Putting a mirror on the missile is not going to help, the laser burns through it.
: ) Hopper
I understand what your saying about the airbourne laser - but unless its battle tested - I think its still a huge bet (I've seen some of the test footage and it is indeed impressive in this regard).
If you are worried about the potential for a nuclear incident - you'd be better off concentrating on India/Pakistan relations. That IS a real potential flashpoint - friendly governments or not. They really don't get on! (another stupid mistake when us brits made a botch job of their independance).
With respect to NK - Other avenues must be found - particularly through neutral or otherwise "friendly" parties (such as China). IMHO this is not *an* option - it is the *only* real option.
Andy
If you are worried about the potential for a nuclear incident - you'd be better off concentrating on India/Pakistan relations. That IS a real potential flashpoint - friendly governments or not. They really don't get on! (another stupid mistake when us brits made a botch job of their independance).
With respect to NK - Other avenues must be found - particularly through neutral or otherwise "friendly" parties (such as China). IMHO this is not *an* option - it is the *only* real option.
Andy
Grasshopper27
Banned
You are correct. I'm not a fool, and I would never want to bet the farm on an unproven weapon system like that.
That is why I want all three systems deployed (in addition to the PAC-3 Patriot for the defense of S. Korea) to improve the chances.
In fact, I wouldn't mind if airbursted nukes were used to intercept the missiles, messy, but not really all that damaging to the planet because few, if any ground debris would be contaimainted.
I agree, both India and Pakistan need to give up their nukes, but I'm not sure that is going to happen.
India I'm not worried about, Pakistan I am...
I believe it is possible to disarm North Korea by force. Then again, when your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
So don't think I'm not aware of the problems with that idea either...
: ) Hopper
Oh please. Unlike the first Korean war China is represented on the world stage and they have a LOT to lose by getting involved in anything that could occur. They want NK to shutup just like the rest of the world. China would never invade Taiwan unless Taiwan declares independence, they want the capital stored on the island whole, an invasion would destroy the value. Any war that starts in Korea will be started by NK, make no mistake about that.
Grasshopper27
Banned
The quality of the surface material required on the missile far exceeds what would survive a launch.
The laser is extremely powerful and the heat and energy would simply burn through any reflective surface that wasn't pollished mirror perfect.
They have shown video of large flat mirrors being destroyed on the Discovery Channel, they have obviously tested for this.
: ) Hopper
firstly, (I haven't checked the figures recently) but I guess that the laser used on the aircraft to "kill" is probably going to deliver v. large amounts of power (MW or above average power I'd guess). That means that even if you only had a couple of % absorption - as I'd guess you at least do if your substrate were say chrome rather than fused silica - you will still be absorbing kW of power - easily enough to cause rapid heating.
Now, if this things travelling rapidly through the atmosphere, friction would (again I'm guessing a bit here) degrade the bragg reflection coatings somewhat. This would also lead to high absorption.
Finally, bragg stack reflectivity is angle dependant. Unless the missile and the beam are coincident at the right angle, the 99.999% reflectivity you'd be looking for would agian be severely degraded.
That's why I think coated missiles aren't going to work.
Andy
Zebo
Elite Member
This program is another waste of tax payers money. Not only do you have to worry about simple counter measures like the chrome missle example, you better hope it's not raining the day a lauch takes place and you can get a lumbering 747 which is an easy target close enough to have the intensity you describe. Seems Reagan had it right with missle defense at the missles slow moving apex back in 84' it's really the only way to "catch" a ICBM and destroy it. In the atmosphere these things are pushing mach 25. LOL ya uh huh.
If they don't shoot down the missile when its above the cloud base - and it's raining - then I can't see the adaptive optics working well enough for a kill. Good point. Maybe this has already been tried? But I know that rain would really muck things up even more than the atmosphere already does.
Andy
Grasshopper27
Banned
Rain? You DO know that rain is not much of an issue at 40,000ft, right? 🙂
This laser has a range of over 100 miles, it will be protected and defended by fighters, and it will be able to hit everything from ICBMs to SCUD missiles.
: ) Hopper
Can I get a link or something. I'm also guessing that the laser isn't near to being operationally ready.
EDIT: found it.
airbourne laser homepage
Andy
Zebo
Elite Member
That's fine if you want to kill em' after burn out, however since most ICBMS are altemeter detonated you still have a problem here. Most missles only have a 75-90 second burn then it's all gravity🙂 The idea is to get them under power so they fall straight back down. And 100 miles yea right. In practice the ABL?s range will be considerably shorter than this maximum because the beam intensity drops with distance and atmospherc effects. And the spot won't be enough to melt a model aeroplane at those distances. Then we get into the easily diffraction countermeasuers I mentioned earlier.
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: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
