New Obama-style missile defence scores test goal The US missile-defence programme has announced a successful test in which a theatre-range ballistic missile of the type possessed by various rogue nations was destroyed above the atmosphere by an interceptor launched from a warship in the Pacific. A Standard SM-3 missile launching from a US warship. Credit: MDA The US Navy …
While I agree with the sentiment I suspect that most Americans do not have the attention span to be able to distinguish between the two presidencies.
It seems Obama is regularly blamed for the current financial situation in America and for the ongoing troubles in Afghanistan. Seems this is trying to equal the balance a little bit ;-)
The one that gave me facts without political boosterism. As someone who worked on Reagan's Star Wars years ago I know that a lot of different ideas have been in the pipe line.
Right now we don't need something to protect us from Korea, but working on a system when we already need it is too late.
I can't deny the cleverness of ideas such as this and the high intensity laser-type projects - but they both need high accuracy to send the projectile/radiation exactly on-target, in the case of using a laser the target needs to be maintained for a long period.
But what's wrong with good old brute force?
Surely if an explosive of a large enough yield was detonated just in front of the travelling target then depending on the distance and intensity/type of explosion a lot of damage could be inflicted:
melting/fragmenting the outside casing of the target, including anything used for propulsion and for protecting against re-entry.
It would then (if it hasn't already due to the explosion) enter the atmosphere without it's protective casing and burn up/disintegrate.
If the initial explosion was powerful/close enough it may already have totally destroyed the target.
And all it needs would be for it to be in the general vicinity or directly in front of the target, but without needing to exactly hit it with pinpoint accuracy.
Volume goes up as the cube of the radius, so you still have to accurate, unless you plan to lift a very very large warhead...
You must have missed, or a related note, the RIB being melted to death by a laser last week. El Reg had a video and everything - the target was in fairly choppy waters.
You're describing the old Sprint/Spartan ABM system, which used 50 kt + warheads to kill inbounds.
There were a number of minor problems.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprint_(missile)>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIM-49_Spartan>
it wasn't that they wouldn't work, it was that they'd work far too well. Not to mention that they'd be doing the working above Canada, and for some reason the Canadians were less than enthusiastic about having lots and lots of nukes going off above their heads.
Where's my mushroom cloud icon?
The thing is, that its very easy to "ruggedize" the warhead if you are willing to pay the cost in payload. According to the Russians, their RSM-25 (Bulava) missiles are fully shielded against EMP damage, AA Lasers and can apparently survive a nuclear blast at 500m.
At least if the wiki is right...
EKV have one advantage and is that, it is the one countermeasure that one cannot conceivably shield against, E=1/2 (mv^2) is still a reliable killing mechanism.
Provided you can hit the target, that is.
Perhaps a lesson to people who wants *bucketloads* of cash to counter a threat posed by not many nations. Seriously North Korea?
Who else?
Thumbs up for the success and leaving this in the inventory seems a pretty good idea but beyond that...
Isnt it like hitting crude katyusha with 50,000 missile (each) of IronDome.... Also what if rogue state first makes an in-space explosion crippling satellites. Also how about explosion in orbit path is ISS its orbiting in lower earth orbit !!!
would you complain of the cost of shooting down a cheap "palestinian" unguided rocket if that rocket was preventing from pasting your son or daughter's apartment all over the block? Or the cost of an interceptor if it stops the one "accidental" ("we didn't mean it, really!") test launch from a peace-loving Asian or middle-eastern theocratic regime that's decided you are the new Ground Zero?
I do find it curious as to how many of these supposedly "left over from WWII" rockets there are, considering how many are expended daily, 365 days a year, decade after decade.
Seems there's more katyusha rockets "left over" than could possibly have been manufactured in total during WWII. I wonder what the volume of a pile of that many "leftovers" would add up to...did somebody miss a pile of unguided rockets the size of Manhattan sitting around on the West Bank after the war ended or something?
PAAMS is designed for the same role as SM-1 and SM-2 (only intended to do a better job than either) which are completely different missiles to the SM-3 that's been used in this test; they share some components with SM-1 and SM-2, but that's all. Just because they're all called Standard doe3sn't mean they're the same weapon; so far as I'm aware, you can't use the SM-3 in a standard anti-air (versus aircraft or low-level missiles like Sunburn and what have you) at all. It's worth noting, however, that the land-based Aster variant apparently already has the capability to intercept short or theatre ballistic missiles, so extending that to the marine variant oughtn't to be that much of a stretch.
Also, in light of "In September 2010, the Sea Viper system was successfully tested on the Royal Navy’s HMS Dauntless Type 45 destroyer with the firing of an Aster 30 missile during trials in the Hebrides. Deliveries of Sea Viper equipment to all of the Type 45 destroyers are complete, except for the delivery of the final Sampson MFR, which is due to complete in February 2011. " presumably there'll be fewer cracks about the Type 45s being unarmed although I look forward to further bemoaning of the lack of a surface attack capability in an anti-aircraft missile (eh? What?) :-).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
